CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 mai 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 } .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 }   427 27.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Portugal, Romania, Russia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23   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.     Berhani v. Albania (application no. 847/05) The applicant, Gentian Berhani, is an Albanian national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving an 18-year prison sentence in Tirana for, among other offences, premeditated murder. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the excessive length and unfairness – lack of reasoning of the domestic courts’ decisions and failure to hear witnesses’ incriminating evidence – of the criminal proceedings brought against him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 4,800 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Tilev v. Bulgaria (no. 25051/02)* The applicant, Kiril Tilev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, he complained of the authorities’ failure to comply with a final court ruling setting aside his eviction from land which he had been farming, and of the length of the proceedings he had brought seeking compensation from the authorities in that regard. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Otava v. Czech Republic (no. 36561/05)* The applicant, Martin Otava, is a Czech national who was born in 1963 and lives in Prague. During the 1980s he bought a house from the Czechoslovakian authorities which had been in State ownership following its confiscation. The couple from whom the house had been confiscated subsequently secured the return of the property after bringing proceedings. Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant complained of the fact that he had been deprived of his possession, acquired in good faith, without receiving compensation. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date concerning pecuniary damage, EUR   5,000 (costs and expenses)   Tchitchinadze v. Georgia (no. 18156/05) The applicant, Sulkhan Tchitchinadze, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Belgorod (Russian Federation). He complained about the quashing of a final and enforceable decision in his favour in which the sale – allegedly made under duress – of property he owned in Batumi had been annulled and the proceedings reopened. He relied in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: return of estate to applicant, or reasonable compensation to be agreed upon by the parties: failing agreement between the parties, the Court reserved the right to fix the further procedure and determine itself the amount of compensation; and, ,EUR   5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Drăghici and Others v. Romania (no. 26212/04)* The applicants, Liliana Drăghici, Ana Mazilu and Adrian Herşiu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1965, 1936 and 1971 respectively and live in Râmnicu Vâlcea (Romania). They are the heirs of land covering an area of almost 70   sq.   km which was confiscated by the authorities during the communist era. After several unsuccessful attempts, they lodged a claim for restitution with the civil courts in 2002, which was rejected as inadmissible because they had failed to comply with a particular procedure (laid down by Law   no.   10/2001). The applicants contended that the procedure in question was ineffective. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained of a breach of their right of access to a court. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000, jointly (non-pecuniary damage)   Ogică v. Romania (no. 24708/03)* The applicant, Stancu Ogică, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Mirău (Romania). At the end of January 2001 he was placed under investigation for attempted fraud and remanded in custody. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained of his conditions of detention. Under Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), he further complained that he had been detained without any legal basis for more than two days after 31   January 2003, the date of a final judgment ordering his release. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Ion Constantin v. Romania (no. 38515/03)* The applicant, Ion Constantin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Piteşti (Romania). Following the entry into force of the 1991 Land Act, aimed at returning to their former owners certain publicly-owned properties, the applicant’s father recovered ownership of a plot of land he wished to bequeath to his son. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant complained that he had been unable to enjoy his property rights as a third party had taken possession of the land after being recognised as the owner by a different authority, a decision upheld by the courts. However, the applicant’s title to the property had not been annulled by a judicial decision nor had he been offered any compensation. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: - Romania is to return to applicant,, within three months, land of equivalent value to that of which he was deprived or, failing that, payment of EUR   74,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage); - costs and expenses EUR   3,200   Artyomov v. Russia (no. 14146/02) The applicant, Sergey Artyomov, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lived until his arrest in Gvardeysk. He was found guilty of aggravated blackmail in 1999 and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; he is currently serving a ten year prison sentence for disruption of order in a detention facility. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the appalling conditions of his detention when held in a detention facility in Kaliningrad from 2003 to 2004. Further relying on Article   3, he also alleged that, when held in a correctional colony in Slavyanonvka, he had been severely beaten on two occasions in October and November 2001 by officers of a special unit carrying out searches and on one other occasion in January 2002 by an officer on duty; he also alleged that there had been no effective investigation into his complaints of that ill-treatment. Lastly, relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complained about the unfairness of the four sets of civil proceedings he had brought in which he had sought compensation for the conditions of his detention and the alleged beatings. Three violations of Article 3 (inhuman treatment as regards conditions of detention; torture as regards beating in October 2001; and, inhuman treatment as regards beating in January 2002) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Violation of Article 13 No violation of Article 3 (alleged beating in November 2001) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (proceedings concerning conditions of detention) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (proceedings concerning alleged ill-treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 54,600 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,000 (costs and expenses)   Nasteska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 23152/05) The applicant, Marina Nasteska, is a national of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” who was born in 1963 and lives in Skopje. Former director of the Inter-county Centre for Social Care, she was convicted in May 2004 of abuse of office and given a six month suspended sentence. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), she complained about the unfairness – decision on appeal given in her absence – as well as the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against her. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,200 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sandel v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 21790/03) The applicant, Gideon Sandel, is an Israeli national who was born in 1941. In January 2007 Mr   Sandel was convicted in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” of fraud and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,600 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 600 (costs and expenses)   Asproftas v. Turkey (no. 16079/90) Petrakidou v. Turkey (no. 16081/90) The applicants, Tasos Asproftas and Marianna Petrakidou, are two Cypriot nationals who were born in 1963 and live in Nicosia. They were both arrested by the Turkish police while taking part in a demonstration on 19   July 1989 in Nicosia. Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for home) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), both applicants complained of not having been able to return to and enjoy their homes, situated in the area under the control of the Turkish military authorities. Relying further on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained of ill-treatment during the demonstration and the ensuing proceedings against them. Finally, relying on Articles   5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (read in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 7), Mr   Asproftas and Ms   Petrakidou complained that they had been prevented from gathering peacefully, detained unlawfully and then convicted in unfair trials of acts which had not constituted criminal offences. No violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 No violation of Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 No violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles   5, 6 and   7   Çelik v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 39326/02) The applicant, Murat Çelik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. At the time of lodging the application with the Court he was a member of the board of directors of the Istanbul Bar Association and an active human rights lawyer. He was injured in a court building in April 1998 during a commotion which occurred after the delivery of a judgment sentencing six police officers of torturing and killing a detainee. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr   Çelik complained about the manner in which the investigation and the subsequent criminal proceedings against the suspected perpetrators had been conducted, resulting in impunity for those responsible. Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey (no. 23872/04) The applicants, Fadime Karabulut and Turan Karabulut, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963 and 1950 respectively and live in Sivas (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life), the applicants complained that their 14-year-old daughter had been killed by a group of soldiers on 29   July 1998, who shot her when she was hitchhiking with her sister to Sivas. Violation of Article 2 (right to life) Just satisfaction: jointly, EUR 60,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,000 (costs and expenses)   Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey (no. 13279/05)* The applicants, Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1949 and 1950 respectively and live in Ankara. Their son, an army pilot, died in May 2001 in a plane crash which occurred during the transport of troops from Diyarbakır to Ankara. They applied unsuccessfully for the monthly pension payable to family members under the Anti-Terrorism Act (Law   no.   3713). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained that the subsequent proceedings before the military administrative courts had been unfair on account of the alleged disparity between the restrictive approach taken by those courts in the matter and the rulings of the ordinary administrative courts, which accepted that Law   no.   3713 should be applicable to the families of soldiers who had died in the same accident. No violation of Article 6 § 1   Özbek v. Turkey (no. 25327/04)* The applicant, Nuri Özbek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Walldorf (Germany). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complained that the army had unlawfully occupied for at least four years land belonging to him. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Şahap Doğan v. Turkey (no. 29361/07) The applicant, Şahap Doğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974. He was detained in June 1996 on suspicion of membership in the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation, and is currently detained in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison (Turkey) pending the criminal proceedings against him. Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   5 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of not having had the right to compensation for that in domestic law. He also complained under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 13,800 (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.   Bîrlă v. Romania (no. 18611/04) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that a final decision in her favour had been quashed by means of an extraordinary appeal. She relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Marin and Gheorghe Rădulescu v. Romania (no. 15851/06)* In this case the applicants complained of their inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to them that had been illegally nationalised. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Papuc v. Romania (no. 44476/04)* This case concerned the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce in good time a final judgment in their favour ordering the restitution of land belonging to them which had been occupied. They relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Düzdemir and Günger v. Turkey (nos. 25952/03 and 25966/03) This case concerned the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce in good time judgments granting compensation to the applicants. The applicants relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Georgi Georgiev v. Bulgaria (no. 22381/05) Alves Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 30358/08)* 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 – both 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.