CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 avril 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 }   286 06.04.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Italy, Moldova, Romania and   Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11   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.     Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Lungu v. Moldova (application no. 17911/08) The applicants, Artur, Corina and Olivia Lungu, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1972, 1973 and 1994 respectively and live in Straseni (Moldova). In a judgment of 28 July 2009, 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) to the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of the non-enforcement of a final judgment awarding the applicants social housing and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgment the Court decided to strike the case out of the list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicants would receive 5,000   euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage), EUR   1,200 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,000 (costs and expenses).   Floarea Pop v. Romania (no. 63101/00)* The applicant, Floarea Pop, is a Romanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bucharest. Her 17-year-old son was serving a prison sentence for theft when he was diagnosed with serious health problems. In October 1993 an application was lodged for suspension of the enforcement of his prison sentence on health grounds resulting in his release. He was admitted to hospital in January 1994 and died a few days later. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), she complained about the shortcomings in the criminal investigation aimed at bringing those responsible for her son’s death to account and about the refusal to exempt her from stamp duty in the proceedings that she brought seeking damages. She further complained of the length of the proceedings for damages. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,500 (costs and expenses)   Ştefan v. Romania (no. 28319/03)* The applicant, Alexandru Ştefan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Giurgiu (Romania). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) he alleged that his right to a fair trial and the principle of legal certainty had been flouted by the Supreme Court of Justice, which imposed a harsher sentence on him when it quashed a final judgment against him in a murder case. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,200 (non-pecuniary damage)   Arif Çelebi and Others v. Turkey (nos. 3076/05 and 26739/05) The applicants, Arif Çelebi, Mukaddes Çelik, Sultan Arıkan (Seçik), Bayram Namaz, Sedat Şenoğlu and Necati Abay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963, 1954, 1971, 1963, 1975 and 1956 respectively and apparently live in Istanbul. They claimed that they had been tortured in 1997 while detained in police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation; notably they alleged beatings, sleep deprivation, “Palestinian hanging” rape and being squeezed in the testicles. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complained about the treatment to which they were subjected and about the manner in which the authorities had carried out the investigation and ensuing criminal proceedings concerning their allegations, resulting in impunity. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: -non-pecuniary damage: EUR 31,200 each -costs and expenses: EUR   3,000 to Arif Çelebi, and EUR   3,000, jointly, to the other five applicants   Orhan Adıyaman v. Turkey (no. 32254/05)* The applicant, Orhan Adıyaman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul. A Lieutenant in the army and responsible for a gendarmerie border post, he was prosecuted in 1990 for bribery and abuse of office. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), complaining about the length of the criminal proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 10,800 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Nita v. Romania (no. 9410/04)* This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that a final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. He relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Ursan v. Romania (no. 35852/04) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities had 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   Fatih Yürük v. Turkey (no. 4930/05)* This case concerned the domestic court’s refusal to grant the applicant legal aid. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Falco and Others v. Italy (nos. 34375/02, 34708/02, 675/03, 688/03, 691/03, 694/03, 11965/03 and 16766/03)* Ghirotti and Benassi v. Italy (nos. 28104/02 and 28217/02)* Soylu and Others v. Turkey (no. 37532/02)* 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 (all cases)     ***   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.