CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 janvier 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   066 26.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Italy, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 30   Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk   (*).     Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Balint v. Romania (application no. 44954/04) Bogdan v. Romania (no. 21750/04) The applicants, Ion Balint and Constantin Bogdan, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1969 and 1957 respectively and live in Bucharest. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), both applicants complained, in particular, of the length of criminal proceedings concerning robbery and trespassing in the first case , and of a claim for damages in the second case. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) in both cases Just satisfaction: to Mr   Balint 3,200 euros (EUR) and to Mr   Bogdan EUR   3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Abdo v. Turkey (no. 17681/04)* The applicant, Şükrü Abdo, is a Syrian national who was born in 1970 and is currently in prison in Midyat (Turkey). He was arrested in 1996 by police from the Counter-Terrorism Department for being a member of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security),), he complained about his pre-trial detention, its duration and the lack of a remedy for challenging its lawfulness. Further relying on Article   6, he also complained about the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him before the domestic courts. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Alican v. Turkey (no. 21868/02) The applicants, Kamuran Alican, Ramazan Alican and Ahmet Alican, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1983, 1946 and 1936 respectively and live in Turkey. The applicants complained, in particular, under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the excessive length of proceedings in which they had claimed compensation for the death of the second and third applicants’ sons and the wounding of the first applicant by a grenade explosion in the vicinity of a military base in 1994. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (costs and expenses)   Alıcı and Omak v. Turkey (no. 57653/00)* The applicants, Halim Alıcı and Hamza Omak, are Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1951 and 1967 and live in Bingöl (Turkey). On suspicion of being members of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation), they were arrested in 1999 and placed in police custody following a search at their homes. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§ 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), they complained that they had had no means of having the lawfulness of their detention verified and that they had not been brought promptly before a judge. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000, jointly (costs and expenses)   Atlı v. Turkey (no. 43529/04)* The applicant, Şükrü Atlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Midyat (Turkey). Having received warning of an imminent attack by the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation), the police on duty at the border with Iraq arrested the applicant and placed him in custody. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §§   1 and   3   c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained that he had been tortured in police custody and that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Çoban v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 4977/04)* Ömer Berber v. Turkey (no. 45084/04)* The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Küçük Hasan Çoban was born in 1975 and was in prison in Ankara at the time the application was lodged. Ömer Berber was born in 1975 and lives in Adana. They were arrested in 1998 and 1995 respectively, on suspicion of working with illegal organisations. Relying in particular on Article   6 (right to a fair trial), they complained that they had not been assisted by a lawyer while in police custody and that the subsequent criminal proceedings against them had been unfair. Mr   Ömer Berber also complained about the length of the proceedings. (Both applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (Mr Berber) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: no claim made by Mr   Çoban; to Mr Berber EUR 3,900 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,000 (costs and expenses)   Demir and İpek v. Turkey (nos. 42138/07 and 42143/07) The applicants, Mahmut Demir and Mustafa İpek, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1970 respectively and are currently detained in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, they complained that their pre-trial detention and the length of the criminal proceedings against them had been excessive, in breach of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 15,600, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Emen v. Turkey (no. 25585/02)* The applicant, Habil Emen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Mardin (Turkey). In 2001 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in the service of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). The court based its findings on evidence from the file in a previous case, in which the applicant was not involved. Relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   d) (right to a fair trial), Mr   Emen complained that he had not been able to question the people whose statements had played an essential part in establishing his guilt. He submitted that the fact that the Turkish courts had taken those statements – which he alleged had been extracted under duress – into account had violated his right to a fair trial. Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (less EUR   850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe) (costs and expenses)   Kürüm v. Turkey (no. 56493/07)* The applicant, Kazım Kürüm, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and is currently in prison in Edirne (Turkey). In March 1997 he was arrested and placed in custody as part of an operation carried out in Istanbul against an illegal armed organisation. He was convicted in 2002 by a first-instance judgment that was set aside by the Court of Cassation in 2003. The criminal proceedings are apparently still pending and the applicant is still in detention pending their outcome. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of the length of his detention and the lack of an effective remedy to challenge the length and lawfulness of his detention and claims compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 14,400 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Mızrap Ateş v. Turkey (no. 7933/05)* The applicant, Mızrap Ateş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). He was arrested in 1998 in the course of an operation against the illegal organisation DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the length of his detention pending trial. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 8,400 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Ebanks v. the United Kingdom (no. 36822/06) The applicant, Kurt Ebanks, is a Caymanian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence   for murder in the Cayman Islands. He complained that his rights under Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) had been violated by the fact that in   his appeal against his conviction, on the basis of inadequate legal representation, no oral evidence had been heard regarding a factual dispute as to the conduct of his defence at trial. No violation of Article 6 §   1 in conjunction with Article 6   §3   (c)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Aldo Leoni v. Italy (application no. 67780/01)* In this case the applicant complained of the failure to pay compensation for the expropriation of his land and a building. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   Avramenko v. Moldova (no. 29808/02) In a judgment of 6 February 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) on account of the late enforcement of a judgment in the applicant’s favour, and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgment the Court decided to strike the case out of the list following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive EUR   37,500 in respect of any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. Just satisfaction Friendly settlement   Bădoi v. Romania (no. 22815/07)* This case concerned the applicant’s inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to him that had been illegally nationalised. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   Ilie Ionescu v. Romania (no. 25963/03)* This case concerned an action for recovery of property. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   Loewenton v. Romania (no. 111/07)* Nita v. Romania (no. 24202/07)* Veniamin v. Romania (no. 19438/05) These cases concerned the applicants’ inability to recover possession of property that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   Aurelia Popa v. Romania (no. 1690/05)* Niculae Petre Popa v. Romania (no. 11249/06)* Tureanu v. Romania (no. 9822/06)* These cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce final judgments in their favour. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   Ţuluş and Others v. Romania (no. 40892/04) This case concerned the applicants’ complaint that a final decision in their favour had been quashed by way of supervisory review. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gümrükçüler and Others v. Turkey (no. 9580/03)* Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Keçeli and Başpınar v. Turkey (no. 21426/03)* Pak v. Turkey (no. 21516/04)* In the three cases above the applicants complained that they had been deprived of their property, designated as forest area, without compensation.   Yener and Albayrak v. Turkey (no. 42900/04)* In this case the applicants complained that there had been no public hearing in proceedings brought against them. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Zeytinli the applicant also relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Gökçek and Others v. Turkey (no. 6219/04)*   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Zeytinli v. Turkey (no. 42952/04)     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.