CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 mars 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   175 02.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13   Chamber judgments. The judgment available only in French is 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.     Hajoł v. Poland (application no. 1127/06)* The applicant, Paweł Hajoł, is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Cracow (Poland). He suffers from various chronic health problems, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, cirrhosis of the liver and obesity. For that reason, he was granted early retirement from his duties as a prosecutor. In 2004 proceedings were brought against him for presumed influence peddling. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that, in the course of those proceedings, he had been placed and kept in pre-trial detention, in spite of his state of health and for a duration that he considered excessively lengthy. No violation of Article 3 No violation of Article 5 § 3   Moculescu v. Romania (no. 15636/04)* The applicant, Maria Moculescu, was born in 1947 and lives in Târgu-Jiu (Romania). In 1969 a plot of land belonging to her was nationalised and the use of it granted to a local cooperative for the construction of a building. In 2002 Ms   Moculescu succeeded in recovering possession of the land, but her applications for the payment of rent by the cooperative – which had become a private-law commercial company – were dismissed, on the ground that the 1996 Law on Cooperative Organisations gave the cooperative a free right of use over the land. The building was sold to another commercial company in 2003. Ms   Moculescu’s action to have that contract set aside and to obtain acknowledgment of her alleged ownership of the building was dismissed. Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention, she complained that it had been impossible to obtain possession of her land. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,500 (pecuniary damage)   Barmaksiz v. Turkey (no. 1004/03)* The applicant, Bülent Barmaksız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Bolu (Turkey). Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and to correspondence), he complained about the systematic surveillance in prison of his correspondence with his lawyer and, under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), alleged that the tribunals which examined his case – the prison’s disciplinary panel, the judge responsible for the execution of sentences and the assize court – had not been impartial and independent and had dismissed his applications without giving reasons. Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 2,400 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,500 (less the EUR   850 already received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe) (costs and expenses)   Lütfi Demirci and Others v. Turkey (no. 28809/05)* The applicants, Lütfi Demirci, Fadime Demirci, Döndü Demirci, Sabire Demirci and Kadir Demirci, are five Turkish nationals who were born in 1947, 1965, 1980, 1989 and 1985 respectively and live in Samsun (Turkey). They are the father, mother, brothers and sisters of Mr   Atalay Demirci, who committed suicide on 6 January 2003 while carrying out his military service. Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life), the applicants alleged that the authorities had not taken measures which could have prevented the suicide of their relative, who had a medical history of psychological problems and had been prescribed anti-depressants. Violation of Article 2 (life) Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: -EUR 3,920, each, to Lüfti and Fadime Demirci; -EUR 1,570, each, to Döndü Demirci, Sabire Demirci and Kadir Demirci     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Iacob Pop and Others v. Romania (nos. 12235/05, 13461/05 and 26070/06)* Stomff v. Romania (no. 39312/07)* Teodor and Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 35676/07)* These three cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce final judgments in their favour. They 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   Veli Yalçın v. Turkey (no. 29459/05)* In this case the applicant complained of the length of compensation proceedings, and that he had not been given a copy of the opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation by the Chief Prosecutor. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Lefevre v. Italy (no. 34871/02)* Antunes v. Portugal (no. 12750/07)* Cenoiu and Others v. Romania (no. 26036/02)* Akkaya v. Turkey (no. 34395/04) Döndü Bilgiç v. Turkey (no. 43948/02)*   In these cases 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 Antunes the applicant also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 ( Lefevre v. Italy / Antunes v. Portugal / Cenoiu and Others v. Romania – 1st applicant – / Akkaya v. Turkey / Döndü Bilgiç v. Turkey)   Violation of Article 13 (Antunes v. Portugal)   ***   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.