CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 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 } .s7AF76660 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super } .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 }   215 16.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Armenia, Italy, Portugal, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16   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.     Mamikonyan v. Armenia (application no. 25083/05) The applicant, Vardan Mamikonyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). Involved in a traffic accident in 2003, he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter resulting from a violation of traffic rules. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that his additional submissions filed as a supplement to his appeal on points of law had not been examined by the Court of Cassation. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Marariu v. Romania (no. 23957/03)* The applicant, Dumitru Marariu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Ploieşti (Romania). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, he complained about the Romanian authorities’ refusal to examine his request for reimbursement of court costs in connection with proceedings brought against him by a tenants’ association for non-payment of charges. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (in respect of all damage sustained)   Aşıcı v. Turkey (no. 26625/04)* The applicant, Atilla Aşıcı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul, where he studied at the technical university. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about acts of violence by the police when they clashed with students during a demonstration over an increase in university canteen charges in 2001, and about the lack of a criminal investigation into those acts. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Yiğitdoğan v. Turkey (no. 20827/08)* The applicant, Yüksel Yiğitdoğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kocaeli (Turkey). On 25   July 1999 he was arrested and taken into police custody during an operation against an illegal armed organisation, the “Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey”. Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive and that he had had no effective remedy in that connection. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 11,000 (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.   Companhia Agrícola das Polvorosas S.A. v. Portugal (no. 12883/06)* This case concerned the delay in calculating and paying the compensation awarded to the applicant company for expropriation. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   Ana Pavel v. Romania (no. 4503/06)* Copaci v. Romania (no. 6946/03)* Sarchizian v. Romania (no. 3439/07)* These cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce final judgments in their favour. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing)) (Ana Pavel / Copaci / Sarchizian) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) (Ana Pavel / Copaci)   Erkmen and Others v. Turkey (no. 6950/05)* In this case the applicants complained that the authorities had deprived them of their property without paying compensation. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)       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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Atzei v. Italy (no. 11978/03)* Briganti and Canella v. Italy (nos. 32860/02 and 32917/02)* Landino v. Italy (no. 11213/04)* Marzola Centri di Fisiokinesiterapia S.A.S. v. Italy (no. 32810/02)* Natale v. Italy (no. 25872/02)* Sanchirico and Lamorte v. Italy (nos. 11013/04 and 11080/04)* Volta and Others v. Italy (no. 43674/02)*   ***   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.