CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 juin 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; 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 } 502 22.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18   Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk   (*).   Repetitive cases [2] , as well as case concerning mainly excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Flieger v. Poland (application no. 36262/08) The applicant, Waldemar Flieger, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and is currently detained in Chelmno (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, he complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him for burglaries committed between December 1998 and February 1999. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 8,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Kurłowicz v. Poland (no. 41029/06) The applicant, Zbigniew Kurłowicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Knyszyn (Poland). At the relevant time, Mr   Kurłowicz was the President of the City Council in Knyszyn. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, he complained of his criminal conviction for defamation following statements he made in February 2004 during a City Council meeting about the professional conduct of a school manager. Violation of Article 10 Just satisfaction: EUR 185 (pecuniary damage), EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   3,070 (costs and expenses)   Boroancă v. Romania (no. 38511/03)* The applicant, Pavel Boroancă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954. In 2002 he was convicted in absentia and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for trading in influence. His conviction was later upheld in his presence. He served part of his sentence in Craiova Prison. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant maintained in particular that no effective investigation had been conducted into an allegation that he had been raped in prison. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained that he had been convicted in absentia without having been properly summoned to appear in court. He submitted that the courts with which he had lodged an ordinary appeal and an appeal on points of law had not cured that initial procedural defect. Violation of Article 3 (investigation) No violation of Article 6 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Economou v. Turkey (no. 18405/91) Evagorou Christou v. Turkey (no. 18403/91) Gavriel v. Turkey (no. 41355/98) Ioannou v. Turkey (no. 18364/91) Kyriacou v. Turkey (no. 18407/91) Michael v. Turkey (no. 18361/91) Nicolaides v. Turkey (no. 18406/91) Orphanides v. Turkey (no. 36705/97) Sophia Andreou v. Turkey (no. 18360/91) In judgments of 20 and 27 January 2009, the Court held that in all these cases, concerning the applicants’ right of access to their property in the northern part of Cyprus, there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). With the exception of Economou and Nicolaides , the Court also held that there had been a violation of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision in any of those cases. In today’s judgments the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging between EUR   10,000 and EUR   400,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and sums ranging between EUR   4,476 and EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses.     Length-of-proceedings cases   Baccini and Artuzzi v. Italy (nos. 26314/03 and 26326/03)* Ciampa and Others v. Italy (nos. 7253/03, 7596/03 and 7608/03)* Rossi and Iuliano and Others v. Italy (nos. 676/03, 678/03, 682/03, 693/03, 695/03 and 697/03)* Toscana Restaura s.a.s. and Azienda Agricola S. Cumano s.r.l. v. Italy (nos.   4428/04 and 5481/05)* Garcia Franco and Others v. Portugal (no. 9273/07)* Maksimovič v. Slovenia (no. 28662/05) 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 – in all cases Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) – 5th and 6th 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 ).   [email protected] / +33 3 9021 42 08 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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.