CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 février 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 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 }   089 02.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Georgia, Italy, Poland, Romania, and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18   Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Klaus and Iouri Kiladze v. Georgia (application no. 7975/06)* The applicants, Klaus Kiladze and his brother Iouri Kiladze, are Georgian nationals who were born in 1926 and 1928 respectively and live in Tbilisi. Having been the victims of political repression during the Soviet era, they brought an action in 1998 seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on the basis of the Law on victim status for persons subjected to political repression. Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained of the “legislative void” which denied them their economic rights under the Law in question. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: application of Article 9 of the law of 11 December 1997 concerning compensation or 4,000   euros (EUR), each (non-pecuniary damage) Costs and expenses: EUR   3,537, jointly   Leone v. Italy (no. 30506/07)* The applicants, Pietro and Donato Leone and Fosca Immacolata Motolese, are Italian nationals who were born in 1937, 1963 and 1940 respectively and live in San Giorgio Jonico (Italy). Some of their possessions were confiscated under an order made in the context of proceedings concerning the application of preventive measures against a member of their family suspected of belonging to a Mafia-type organisation. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, they complained in particular that the hearings in those proceedings had not been conducted in public. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000, jointly (costs and expenses)   Brożyna v. Poland (no. 7147/06) The applicant, Henryka Brożyna, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Olkusz (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Ms   Brożyna complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against her in 1999 – discontinued in 2005 – for threatening to kill and assault. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   300 (costs and expenses)   Dąbrowska v. Poland (no. 34568/08)* The applicant, Joanna Maria Dąbrowska, is a Polish national who lives in Białystok (Poland). Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms   Dąbrowska alleged that the Polish authorities had continually failed to enforce decisions in which she had been granted custody of her son, born in 1998. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Marian Sobczyński v. Poland (no. 35494/08) The applicant, Marian Sobczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Zabrze (Poland). Arrested in 2006 on suspicion of being a member of an organised criminal gang, tax fraud and perjury, Mr   Sobczyński was released under police supervision in 2009. The criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand. No violation of Article 5 § 3   Nieruchomości Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (no. 32740/06)* The applicant, Nieruchomości Sp. z o.o. , is a limited liability company under Polish law with its registered office in Legnica (Poland). In 2006 it commenced proceedings against two companies, claiming that the latter had not paid it the commission due for the property brokerage services it had provided. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complained of the allegedly arbitrary nature of the authorities’ refusal to exempt it from payment of the court fees for bringing its civil action. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Scundeanu v. Romania (no. 10193/02)* The applicant, Ion Scundeanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bacău (Romania). After several criminal complaints alleging fraud were lodged by companies which had worked together with the company of which the applicant was a director, a criminal investigation was opened; the applicant was charged and was remanded in custody. Relying, in particular, on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained that his pre-trial detention had been excessively long in view of the offences of which he stood accused. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Aktar v. Turkey (no. 3738/04) The applicant, Naim Aktar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Ankara. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr   Aktar complained about the unfairness and excessive length of civil proceedings concerning his claim to title over seven plots of land in the Bozcaada region. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,200 (non-pecuniary damage)   Eyüp Akdeniz v. Turkey (no. 11011/05)* The applicant, Eyüp Akdeniz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. While he was performing his military service at Ereğli gendarmerie headquarters he contracted the hepatitis   C virus. He was unable to bring an action for damages against the State on this account before the administrative courts because of the amount of the court fees and the fact that he was refused legal aid. He complained of this situation, relying, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Güvercin v. Turkey (no. 28923/02)* The applicant, Gökhan Güvercin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Ankara. In late 2001 he was arrested in the street on suspicion of theft. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained that he had been ill-treated by the police while in their custody following his arrest. Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   İsmail and Şeyhmus Kinay v. Turkey (nos. 34683/07 and 34685/07)* The applicants , İsmail Kinay and Şeyhmus Kinay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949 and 1955 respectively and are currently in Diyarbakır Prison (Turkey). They have been in pre-trial detention since the beginning of 2000 and criminal proceedings are pending against them for, among other offences, attempting to overthrow the Turkish constitutional order. Relying on Articles   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained of the excessive length of both their pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against them. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Kaçmaz v. Turkey (no. 43648/05)* The applicant, Abdulcelil Kaçmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and is currently in Kocaeli Prison (Turkey). In June 1996 he was arrested during an operation conducted against an illegal armed organisation in Istanbul. He was held in pre-trial detention throughout the ensuing criminal proceedings. After his initial conviction in 2003 was quashed and the case was reheard, he was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007; the sentence became final in April 2008. Relying, in particular, on Article   5   §§   3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the length of his pre-trial detention and the absence of effective remedies by which to appeal against the length of his detention and to obtain compensation for its allegedly unlawful nature. Under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he also alleged that the proceedings against him had been excessively long and that he had had no effective remedy by which to complain of their length. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,040 (costs and expenses)   Kemal Taşkın and Others v. Turkey (nos. 30206/04, 37038/04, 43681/04, 45376/04, 12881/05, 28697/05, 32797/05 and 45609/05)* The applicants are eight Turkish nationals of Kurdish origin. At the end of 2003 they each brought proceedings before the competent court seeking to have their Turkish first names changed to Kurdish names. Their requests were refused (or, at least, they were not allowed to spell the name in the way they wished) because the names they had chosen contained characters not in the Turkish official alphabet. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken alone and in conjunction with Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), they complained of the decisions refusing them permission No violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8   Mehmet Nuri Özen v. Turkey (no. 37619/05)* The applicant, Mehmet Nuri Özen, is a Turkish national. He is currently serving a prison sentence in İzmir F-type Prison in Turkey for membership of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). On an unspecified date he handed over a fax to the prison authorities for forwarding to a newspaper. In July 2005 a prison disciplinary board refused to forward the fax and ordered its destruction; this decision was upheld by the courts. Relying, in particular, on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), the applicant complained about this measure. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Müslüm Çiftçi v. Turkey (no. 30307/03)* The applicant, Müslüm Çiftçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey). He is a civil servant and veterinary surgeon and belongs to a trade union ( Tarım-Gıda Sen ). He was transferred to another province on disciplinary grounds for having taken part in a hunger strike organised by his trade union in late 1998. He complained of his transfer relying, in particular, on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association). Violation of Article 11 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Savgın v. Turkey (no. 13304/03)* The applicants, Esmer Savgın and his brother, Kerem Savgın, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977 and 1981 respectively and live in Bitlis (Turkey). In late 2001 they received criminal convictions for aiding and abetting the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation) after they and some other youths chanted slogans in support of the PKK during the traditional Kurdish festival of Newroz . Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression, they complained of their criminal conviction for chanting slogans. Under Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c), they further complained that they had been given no opportunity to reply to the written opinion submitted by the Principal Public Prosecutor to the Court of Cassation concerning their appeal on points of law and that they did not have the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody. Violation of Article 10 Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Zehni Doğan v. Turkey (no. 1515/04) The applicant, Zehni Doğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul. Mr   Doğan was arrested in October 2001 on suspicion of involvement in fraud and forgery. He was released in July 2003 and subsequently acquitted for lack of evidence. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   3 and   5 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the fact that he had had no right to compensation for the excessive length of that detention. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Magoch v. Poland (no. 29539/07)     ***   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.