CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 avril 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 324 20.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15   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.     Novikas v. Lithuania (application no. 45756/05) The applicant, Andrejus Novikas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Klaipèda (Lithuania). Convicted of burglary in January 2004, Mr   Novikas complained in particular about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 1,800 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,500 (costs and expenses)   Brega v. Moldova (no. 52100/08) The applicant, Ghenadie Brega, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1975 and lives in Pepeni (Moldova). He is a journalist. In May 2008 outside a Government building in Chişinau’s main square he staged a silent protest about his brother’s arrest and detention a few days’ earlier. He was approached by police officers and arrested for disturbing public order; he filmed the encounter. The domestic courts subsequently acquitted him, upholding that his arrest and detention were based on false grounds as it could be seen from his video that he had neither resisted arrest nor insulted the police officers. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, he complained about the verbal and physical abuse to which he was subjected before being arrested and the poor conditions – including lack of medical assistance – of his subsequent detention. He also complained that his detention for 48   hours without any legal basis violated his rights, in particular, under Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) and Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association) . Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 11 Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Racu v. Moldova (no. 13136/07) The applicant, Simion Racu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1951 and lives in Chişinău. 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) as a result of the non-enforcement of a final judgment awarding the applicant 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 applicant would receive EUR   1,800 to cover non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   Krzysztofiak v. Poland (no. 38018/07) The applicant, Marian Krzysztofiak, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Gdynia (Poland). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Krzysztofiak complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention as well as of the criminal proceedings – still pending – against him for drug-trafficking. He was released in June 2008 and placed under police supervision. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,100 (non-pecuniary damage)   Z. v. Poland (no. 34694/06) The applicant, Z., is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Bytom (Poland). The case concerned his complaint that, since his separation with his ex-wife in 2000, the Polish authorities had failed to enforce his visiting rights with his daughter, born in 1996. He relied in particular on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life). Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Bălaşa v. Romania (no. 21143/02)* The applicant, Ion Bălaşa, is a Romanian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Piteşti (Romania). Following the fall of the Communist regime he obtained a court order for the restitution of a plot of land, which was then set aside in 2001. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained of the setting-aside of the order following proceedings which, he claimed, had been conducted in breach of the principle of equality of arms and the adversarial principle. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia (no. 12312/05) The applicants are Kin-Stib, a limited liability company based in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Milorad Majkić, a national of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro at the time the application was lodged with the Court. The applicants complained about the partial non-enforcement of an arbitration award given in their favour in a dispute about a casino with the owner’s of the Hotel Continental Belgrade. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: Serbia to pay to the applicants within three months of the day the judgment becomes final the sums awarded in the domestic judgments concerning the enforcement of the arbitration award in their favour and EUR 8,000 jointly (non-pecuniary damage), and to the applicant company EUR 30,000 (costs and expenses) .     Bektaş and Özalp v. Turkey (no. 10036/03) Özcan and Others v. Turkey (no. 18893/05) Both cases concerned the excessive use of force against the applicants’ close relatives during operations by the police (first case) and the military (second case). The applicants in the first case are two Turkish nationals, Kezban Bektaş, who was born in 1968 and lives in Adana, and Gülay Özalp, who was born in 1966 and lives in Hatay (Turkey). They complained about the killing of Murat Bektaş, aged   32, and Erdinç Arslan, aged 22, their husband and brother, respectively, during a police anti-terrorist raid on 5   October 1999 on the block of flats where the two men were living. The applicants in the second case are 16   Turkish nationals who allege that their close relative, Yılmaz Özcan, aged 42, was severely beaten and then shot in the back of his neck on 24   September 2000 by gendarmes who had come to the family home to arrest him. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), all the applicants complained that the use of force against their relatives had not been necessary and that the ensuing investigations into their deaths had been ineffective. In the case of Özcan and Others the applicants further complained about the ill-treatment to which their relative had been subjected before his death, in breach of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). (First case) Two violations of Article 2 (life) (Second case) Violation of Article 2 (life) (Second case) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: in the first case – sums ranging between EUR   200 and EUR   2,800 (pecuniary damage), between EUR 40,000 and EUR 60,000 (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 1,500 jointly to both applicants (costs and expenses); in the second case – EUR   40,000 to the third applicant (pecuniary damage) and sums ranging between EUR   2,000 and EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage).   Adetoro v. United Kingdom (no. 46834/06) The applicant, David Adetoro, is a British national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a 22-year prison sentence in HMP Whitemoor (United Kingdom) for taking part in a series of robberies of security vehicles carrying cash. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair as the trial judge’s direction to the jury on the drawing of adverse inferences from his silence during police interview had been deficient. No violation of Article 6 § 1     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bek v. Turkey (no. 23522/05)* This case concerned in particular the domestic court’s refusal to grant the applicant legal aid. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Oray v. Turkey (no. 37243/05)* This case concerned the delay by the authorities in enforcing a final decision awarding severance pay to the applicant. The application raises, in particular, an issue under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Martinetti and Cavazzuti v. Italy (nos. 37947/02 and 39420/02)* Wiśniewska v. Poland (no. 42401/08) Toader v. Romania (no. 25811/04)* 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.