CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 juin 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 }   465 08.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Sweden and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 20 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.     Medgyes and Rusz v. Hungary (application no. 14308/07) The applicants, Gábor Hedgyes and János Rusz, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1941 respectively and live in Budapest. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against them for fraud and forgery. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 12,000 euros (EUR), each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   500, jointly (costs and expenses)   Górny v. Poland (no. 50399/07) The applicant, Kazimierz Górny, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Katowice (Poland). An advocate, Mr   Górny was removed from the Bar Association in 2007 following proceedings (so-called “lustration proceedings”) brought against him which aimed at exposing persons who had worked for or collaborated with the State’s security services during the communist period. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, he alleged that the lustration proceedings against him had been unfair because, due to document confidentiality and limitations on access to his case file, he could not prove that the contacts he had had with the communist-era secret services had not amounted to “collaboration”. Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (fairness) Just satisfaction: -non-pecuniary damage: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for, -costs and expenses: EUR   400   Gradek v. Poland (no. 39631/06) The applicant, Paweł Gradek, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Łódź (Poland). Arrested on suspicion of fraud in June 2006, Mr   Gradek was ultimately released in May 2008; the proceedings against him are currently still pending. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand and the fact that for a period of almost five months during his detention he had been deprived of all personal contact with his family. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Kumenda v. Poland (no. 2369/09) The applicant, Stanisław Kumenda, is a Polish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Raciborz (Poland). Arrested in October 2007 on suspicion of domestic violence, Mr   Kumenda complained that he had been held in an ordinary detention centre despite being mentally ill. He was ultimately transferred to a psychiatric hospital in June 2009. He relied in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security) and further complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Wojciech Nowak v. Poland (no. 11118/06) The applicant, Wojciech Nowak, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Zawiercie (Poland). Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr   Nowak complained that the Polish authorities had failed to take effective steps to enforce his right of contact with his son, born in 1994, since separating with the child’s mother. No violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo v. Portugal (no. 30844/05)* The applicants are Francisco Gustavo de Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo, who was born in 1957 and lives in Oeiras (Portugal), and Pedro Miguel de Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo, who was born in 1949 and died in 2007. They alleged that they had been deprived of land belonging to them without receiving compensation. In a judgment of 13 January 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgment, the Court awarded the applicants EUR   110,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   15,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   Motion Pictures Guarantors Ltd v. Serbia (no. 28353/06) The applicant, Motion Pictures Guarantors Ltd, is a company based in Canada. In September 2005 the civil suit which the applicant company had brought against one of its former business partners before the Commercial Court was terminated as allegedly neither party had duly appeared before the court. The applicant company then sought procedural reinstatement, as their lawyer had in fact gone to the hearing but had arrived late due to his taxi having broken down. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complained that their request for procedural reinstatement had been rejected without having a public, adversarial hearing before the competent court. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: -damage: no claim made by the applicant company -costs and expenses: EUR 1,000   Dolhamre v. Sweden (no. 67/04) The applicants are Endre Dolhamre, a Swedish national, his wife, Alma Dolhamre, who is of Lebanese origin, and their three children. They were born in 1952, 1954, 1988, 1991 and 1994 respectively and live in Götene (Sweden). In October 2001 the Swedish authorities’ took the three children into public care and restricted access to them, following the eldest daughter’s allegations that her father sexually abused and beat her and her sisters. The care orders were terminated in October 2003, the child having retracted her accusations and the situation at home no longer being considered deficient. The applicants relied in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). No violation of Article 8   Alkes v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 16047/04) The applicant, Ali Ümit Alkes, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Switzerland. Relying in particular on Article   6 (right to a fair trial), Mr   Alkes complained about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him for membership of an illegal organisation and armed robbery, for which he had been ultimately convicted in January 2003 to 16   years and eight months’ imprisonment. No violation of Article 6   Just satisfaction Karaman v. Turkey (no. 6489/03)* The applicants, Mustafa Karaman and Nimet Karaman, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1939 and 1949 respectively and live in Istanbul. They complained that, after they had ceded a plot of their land to the authorities for public-interest purposes, only a part of their property had been put to such use. In a judgment of   15 January 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgment, the Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   47,817 for pecuniary damage.   Wolf-Sorg v. Turkey (no. 6458/03)* The applicant, Lieselotte Wolf-Sorg, is a Turkish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Escuintla (Guatemala). The case concerned the death of her daughter, Andrea Wolf, a German national, allegedly in 1998 during an armed clash between the army and members of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life), the applicant complained about the conditions in which her daughter had died and the inadequate investigation carried out by the authorities, submitting, for example, that her daughter’s grave had not been identified. No violation of Article 2 (right to life) Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   15,000 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Lopes Fernandes v. Portugal (no. 29378/06)* This case concerned the delay in calculating and paying the compensation awarded to the applicant. He relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Maties v. Romania (no. 13202/03)* This case concerned the applicant’s inability to obtain effective compensation for land belonging to him that was illegally nationalised. He relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Ato v. Turkey (no. 29873/02)* Bildirici v. Turkey (no. 43227/04)* Karacan v. Turkey (no. 14886/05)* These cases concerned the failure by the domestic authorities to enforce final judgments in favour of the applicants with regard to compensation. The applicants relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Biçer v. Turkey (no. 21316/05) In this case the applicant complained that he had not been given a copy of the written opinion submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court by the Principal Public Prosecutor. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Büyükdere and Others v. Turkey (nos. 6162/04, 6297/04, 6304/04, 6305/04, 6149/04, 9724/04 and 9733/04)* This case concerned the failure to provide the applicants with a copy of the opinion of State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative Court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   (Six cases) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     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.   Kozłowski v. Poland (no. 47611/07)* – Violation of Article 6 § 1   Revision Wypukoł-Piętka v. Poland (no. 3441/02) In its judgment today, the Court considered that the award made to the deceased applicant should be paid to her heir.     ***   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.