CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 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 }   106 09.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Armenia, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14   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.     Asatryan v. Armenia (application no. 24173/06) The applicant, Silva Asatryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Yerevan. She was arrested and taken into custody on 23 September 2005 on suspicion of attempted murder. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1   (c) (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, she complained that she had not been released from custody between 23   November 2005 – when the decision authorising her detention expired – and 24   November 2005 – when the Court of Appeal decided to prolong her detention. Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) Just satisfaction: 2,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   500 (costs and expenses)   Bölükbaş and Others v. Turkey (no. 29799/02)* The applicants are 15 Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul. The case concerns a plot of agricultural land located in the Belgrade Forest in Istanbul; the applicants claim ownership of this land on the basis of title deeds registered in 1933 under the name of their ascendant. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention, they complained about the authorities’ refusal to enter the land in the land register under their names on the ground that it was part of the public forest. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Boz v. Turkey (no. 2039/04)* The applicant, Mehdi Boz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Ankara. In 1995 he was arrested on suspicion of belonging to the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation). At the end of his trial he was sentenced to the death penalty for “membership of an armed gang”, a sentence which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. Relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained primarily of the length of the criminal proceedings, the fact that he did not have access to a lawyer while in police custody. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Emine Yaşar v. Turkey (no. 863/04)* The applicant, Emine Yaşar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul. Relying in particular on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she complained of the ill-treatment to which she had been allegedly subjected by police officers during the dispersal by force of a forty-strong group of women, including the applicant, who had been seeking to make a statement to the press in protest of war following the events of 11   September 2001; she also alleged that the courts had granted impunity to the accused police officers. Violation of Article 11 Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bistriţeanu and Popovici v. Romania (no. 5855/05)* Evolceanu v. Romania (no. 37522/05)* Mărăcineanu v. Romania (no. 35591/03)* These cases concerned the applicants’ inability to recover possession of property that was nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. They all relied in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction Struck out Marioara Anghelescu v. Romania (no. 5437/03)* In a judgment of 3 June 2008, 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 non-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 its judgment today, the Court decided to strike the case out of its list ***   Milădin v. Romania (no. 5381/04) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the Romanian authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in her favour. She relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Tăutu v. Romania (no. 17299/05)* This case concerned the quashing of a final judgment in the applicant’s favour on an application by the Procurator-General. The applicant relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Bora v. Turkey (no. 14719/03) This case concerned the failure by the domestic authorities to enforce a final judgment with regard to a title deed of land. The applicant relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     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. The applicants in the cases of A.R., spol. s r.o. and Richard Anderson also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 A.R., spol. s r.o. v. Slovakia (no. 13960/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Evrim İnşaat   A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 19173/03) Richard Anderson v. United Kingdom (no. 19859/04)     ***   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.