CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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 } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .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 }   152 23.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Finland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 20   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.     Nousiainen v. Finland (application no. 45952/08) The applicants are two Finnish nationals who live in Finland. Toivo Pekka Nousiainen was born in 1931 and lives in Oulu, and his son, Veli-Pekka Nousiainen, was born in 1958 and lives in Espoo. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought in June 2000 following an incident in which the first applicant had been attacked by a group of men and in which both applicants had suffered injuries. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 3,000 euros (EUR), each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,976.40, jointly (costs and expenses)   Sychev v. Russia (no. 14824/02) The applicant, Oleg Sychev, is a military serviceman, and was head of the road construction department in Tyumen Garrison between 1996 and 2000.. He is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Novyy Urengoy (Russia). Relying, in particular, on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained about his detention on remand in June 2000 on suspicion of aggravated theft and especially about his repeated placement in psychiatric institutions for an examination of his mental condition. He also complained about not having been released pending trial and about his trial not having been conducted within a reasonable time. No violation of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Ağnidis v. Turkey (no. 21668/02)* The applicants, Ekaterina Ağnidis and her daughter Evridiki Ağnidis, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1912 and 1937 respectively and live in Istanbul. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained of the annulment of their certificate of inheritance by the domestic courts. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Alpdemir v. Turkey (no. 17251/03)* The applicant, Yılmaz Alpdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was twice taken into police custody for membership of an illegal armed gang. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complained that his detention in police custody had been unlawful, that he had not had any remedy to review its lawfulness and that he had not been brought promptly before a judge. Violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant within the time-limit   Ekşi and Ocak v. Turkey (no. 44920/04)* The applicants, Yılmaz Ekşi and Behlül Ocak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1953 and 1986 respectively and live in Istanbul. In 2003 they took part with around 50 other people in a ceremony to commemorate the events of 1 May 1977, known as “Bloody May Day”, when 34 people died on Taksim Square in Istanbul. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), they complained that they had been ill-treated by police officers during the forced dispersal of their demonstration and that the courts had granted impunity to the officers concerned. Violation of Article 11 Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicants   Emil Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 45652/04)* The applicant, Emil Yıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Antalya (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the length of the proceedings brought against him for fraud in relation to a purchase of textiles. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Erkan İnan v. Turkey (no. 13176/05)* The applicant, Erkan İnan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Van (Turkey). In January 2005 he was arrested and taken into police custody as part of a police operation against the perpetrators of a bomb attack. He was suspected of membership of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation). Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the proceedings in which he had sought to challenge the lawfulness of his subsequent pre-trial detention. Violation of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Gökhan Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 31950/05) The applicant, Gökhan Yıldırım, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Kayseri (Turkey). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained about having been tortured in police custody in February 2001 after he had been arrested following his attempt to escape from the police, who had arrived at his flat, and his taking some of his neighbours hostage. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   150 (costs and expenses)   Nurten Deniz Bülbül v. Turkey (no. 4649/05)* The applicant, Nurten Deniz Bülbül, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), she alleged in essence that the authorities had not taken the necessary steps to prevent her son’s suicide in 2003, while he was performing his military service. She also complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation in order to establish with certainty the circumstances of his death and had not considered the possibility that he had been murdered. No violation of Article 2   Sebahattin Evcimen v. Turkey (no. 31792/06) The applicant, Sebahattin Evcimen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Istanbul. Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about the unfairness and excessive length of civil proceedings in which he had sought compensation for an accident he had had at work in February 1993 in which he had seriously injured his leg. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 8,100 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Yeşilyurt v. Turkey (no. 15649/05) The applicant, Bahar Yeşilyurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Batman (Turkey). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right   to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the excessive length of her pre-trial detention on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, and of the excessively long criminal proceedings brought against her in October 1995. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 13,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Yoldaş v. Turkey (no. 27503/04)* The applicant, Mehmet Yoldaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Elbistan (Turkey). In December 2003 he was handed over to the Turkish authorities by the Syrian authorities, having been accused of membership of the PKK/KONGRA-GEL, an illegal organisation. He was detained in police custody for six days. Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the excessive length of that detention. Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), he further complained that he had not had the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody. Violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (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.   Man and Cusa v. Romania (no. 33768/04)* Maria Violeta Lăzărescu v. Romania (no. 10636/06) These cases concerned the applicants’ inability to recover possession of property that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. They relied in particular on Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Marton v. Romania (no. 22960/06) Traian-Constantin Nicolescu v. Romania (no. 10311/03) These two cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce final decisions in their favour. The applicants 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   S.C. Silvogrecu Com. S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 5355/04)* This case concerned the annulment by the domestic courts of an appeal lodged by the applicant company because it had not paid stamp duty. The applicant company relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Length-of-proceedings cases   Anticor-Sociedade de Anti-Corrosão, Lda. v. Portugal (no. 33661/06)* Uyar v. Turkey (no. 17756/06) Gürkan (Yavaş) v. Turkey (no. 34294/04)* In the above 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 In the case of Gürkan (Yavaş) the applicant also relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and in the cases of Anticor-Sociedade de Anti-Corrosão, Lda. and Uyar the applicants also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (all three cases) Violation of Article 13 (Anticor-Sociedade de Anti-Corrosão, Lda.)     ***   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.