CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; 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 } .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 }   245 23.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Albania, Italy, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17   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.     Mullai and Others v. Albania (application no. 9074/07) The applicants are seven Albanian nationals, who live in Albania, the United States of America and Italy, and a limited liability company incorporated under Albanian law and registered in Tirana. The case concerns a dispute over a building permit. The applicants alleged in particular that the authorities had failed to enforce a final court judgment in which their building permit had been declared valid and then had breached the principle of legal certainty by quashing that final judgment. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Calabrò v. Italy (no. 17426/02)* The applicant, Placido Calabrò, is an Italian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Messina (Italy). He is a lawyer. In civil proceedings concerning him personally, he chose to represent himself in the Court of Cassation. Relying mainly on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, he complained that because he was presenting his own case unassisted, the Court of Cassation had not taken into account the submissions he filed to challenge an application by State Counsel for his appeal to be declared inadmissible. He alleged that the Court of Cassation had acted in error because he had filed his submissions as his own representative and not as an appellant. No violation of Article 6 § 1   Döndü Erdoğan v. Turkey (no. 32505/02) The applicant, Döndü Erdoğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1986 and lives in Istanbul. Stopped in the street for an identity check in April 2001 and arrested, Ms   Erdoğan alleged that, while in police custody, she had been beaten with a truncheon, hosed down with cold water and banged against walls. On her release she attempted to commit suicide. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she complained about that ill-treatment, especially bearing in mind that she had been just 15   years old at the time, and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into her allegations. No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Hakan Duman v. Turkey (no. 28439/03) The applicant, Hakan Duman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in   Bursa (Turkey). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr   Duman alleged that he had been tortured in January 2002 while in police custody on charges of burglary. He also complained that he had subsequently been convicted as charged on the basis of statements obtained from him – and which he had later retracted – during the pre ‑ trial investigation in the absence of a lawyer and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to him, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial). Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 1,800   euros   (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   250 (costs and expenses)   Orhan Çaçan v. Turkey (no. 26437/04)* The applicant, Orhan Çaçan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and is currently in prison in Turkey. He was arrested in 1999 on suspicion of being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation) and murder. In 2003 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for carrying out acts designed to bring about the secession of part of Turkey’s territory. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair hearing), he complained that the court which had convicted him had not re-examined a key witness despite the fact that he had changed his version of events in the course of the proceedings. Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR   1,800 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,000 (for costs and expenses, less the EUR   850 already received by way of legal assistance from the Council of Europe)   Özgür Uyanık v. Turkey (no. 11068/04) The applicant, Özgür Uyanık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. Detained in May 1996 in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation, Mr   Uyanık alleged that he had been stripped, blindfolded, suspended from the arms, electrocuted and beaten during his police custody. He further alleged that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations. He relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 27,300 (non-pecuniary damage)   S.S. Göller Bölgesi Konut Yapı Koop v. Turkey (no. 35802/02)* The applicant, Sınırlı Sorumlu Göller Bölgesi Konut Yapı Kooperatifi, is a housing cooperative with its registered office in Burdur. Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1(protection of property), it complained of the national courts’ annulment of its title to a plot of land, which was re-registered as Treasury property without any compensation being paid to it. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Süleyman Baba v. Turkey (no. 2150/05)* The applicant, Süleyman Baba, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complained that more than 37,000   sq.   m of land belonging to him had been designated as public forest in 1988, without any compensation. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Geta Stanciu and Others v. Romania (no. 29755/06)* I.D. v. Romania (no. 3271/04)* Maria and Dorel-Dănuţ Barbu v. Romania (no. 14332/03)* Popa and Alecsandru v. Romania (no. 2617/04)* Tomescu v. Romania (no. 35999/07)* These cases concerned, in particular, the applicants’ complaints that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property) and/or Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (all cases except I.D.) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (all cases except Popa and Alecsandru) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (I.D.)   SC Vălie Prod SRL v. Romania (no. 23507/04) This case concerned the applicant company’s complaint that a final decision in its favour had been quashed by way of supervisory review. It relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Arif Erdem v. Turkey (no. 37171/04)* In this case, the applicant complained that he had been deprived of his property, designated forest area, without compensation. He relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     Length-of-proceedings cases   Bostan v. Turkey (no. 43945/04)* Merter and Others v. Turkey (no. 2249/03) In these 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     ***   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.