CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 juillet 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s163D3B2F { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 576 20.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Albania, Armenia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 10   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.   Delivery of the Aksu v. Turkey (nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04) judgment, initially scheduled for today, has been postponed to 27 July 2010.     Hovhannisyan and Shiroyan v. Armenia (application no. 5065/06) Yeranosyan and Others v. Armenia (no. 13916/06) The applicants are 11 Armenian nationals who live in Yerevan. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about the State’s expropriation of their flat and house in Yerevan to carry out construction projects. (Both cases) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: - first case: question reserved for decision at a later date - second case: no claim made by the applicants within time-limit   Balčiūnas v. Lithuania (no. 17095/02) The applicant, Laimutis Balčiūnas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Šiauliai (Lithuania). He was arrested in 1998 on charges of armed robbery and, still in pre-trial detention, had another set of criminal proceedings brought against him in May 2000 on suspicion of being a member of a criminal organisation involved in explosions in public places. He was released in September 2003, on being acquitted in the second set of proceedings, and convicted as charged in October 2004, in the first set of proceedings, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, he complained about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention with regard to the two sets of proceedings against him. He also complained that the proceedings against him for robbery had been unfair as he had not been able to challenge two witnesses whose testimony had been used to convict him, in breach of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) Just satisfaction: 6,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Altıparmak v. Turkey (no. 27023/06)* The applicant, Sevgül Altıparmak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Malatya (Turkey). In 2002 she brought an action for damages on account of her husband’s murder. She complained that she had been required to pay a fee in order to be notified of the District Court’s judgment, in which she had been awarded damages, and submitted that she had thus been denied the opportunity to institute enforcement proceedings. She relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: Turkey shall, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final, ensure that the obstacles hindering the enforcement of the national judgment at issue be lifted. It shall also pay EUR   7,200 (non-pecuniary damage).   Revision Volkan Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 29105/03) Following the death of Mr Özdemir in February 2007, his representative requested revision of the European Court of Human Right’s judgment of 20   October 2009 in which it had held that there had been a violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody and the lack of an effective investigation into that complaint. In its judgment today, the Court considered that the award made to the deceased applicant should be paid, jointly, to his heirs.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Puto and Others v. Albania (no. 609/07) This case concerned the non-enforcement of a final court decision in the applicants’ favour. They 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 (access to court) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Revision Erdoğan and Fırat v. Turkey (nos. 15121/03 and 15127/03)* Following the death of Mr Erdoğan on 12 April 2009, his representative requested revision of the judgment of 2   June 2009, in which the Court had found that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) had been violated on account of the delay by the authorities in paying compensation for expropriation. In its judgment today, the Court considered that the award made to the deceased applicant should be paid, jointly, to his heirs.   Just satisfaction Keçecioğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 37546/02)* In a judgment of 8 April 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning property belonging to the applicants which had been expropriated in the public interest but subsequently not used. The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In its judgment today, the Court awarded the applicants EUR   2,000,000, jointly, for pecuniary damage.     Length-of-proceedings cases   Biçer and Others v. Turkey (no. 19441/04) Buhur v. Turkey (no. 24869/05) 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. (Both cases) Violation of Article 6 § 1   ***   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 [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) 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 Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution . [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.