CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 juillet 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 } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .s7C768949 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .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 } .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 } .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 }   590 27.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 27 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.     Marcon v. Italy (application no. 32851/02)* The applicant, Vittorina Marcon, is an Italian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Udine (Italy). She filed a complaint (under the “Pinto” Act) about the excessive length of proceedings concerning the partition of an estate, which lasted from 1989 to 2000. She was awarded compensation. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mrs   Marcon complained about the length of the main proceedings and about the “Pinto” compensation, which she claimed was insufficient and only paid after a long delay. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length) Just satisfaction: 4,974 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   500 (costs and expenses)   Gineitienė v. Lithuania (no. 20739/05) The applicant, Ilona Gineitienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Vilnius. Relying in particular on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, she complained about the Lithuanian courts’ decision in 2004 to place her two daughters, born in 1995 and 1996, with their father. In particular, she claimed that the real reason for taking away her daughters was that she was a member of the Ojas Meditation Centre, a Lithuanian branch of a new religious movement called Osho. No violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14   Louled Massoud v. Malta (no. 24340/08) The applicant, Khaled Louled Massoud, is an Algerian national who was born in 1960 and was, at the time of the introduction of this application, detained in Safi Military Barracks, Safi (Malta). He arrived in Malta in June 2006 by boat and, was immediately detained. He was subsequently charged and found guilty of aiding others to enter Malta. On completing his sentence of imprisonment, he was released but immediately placed in a detention centre for a little more than 18   months. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he notably complained about the unlawfulness of his detention for more than 18   months, the maximum allowed according to a policy introduced in Malta in 2005 concerning illegal immigrants, refugees and integration. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Rafał Orzechowski v. Poland (no. 34653/08) The applicant, Rafał Jerzy Orzechowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Gdynia (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length – almost ten years – of criminal proceedings brought against him for, among other offences, robbery. The proceedings are still pending and no hearing has yet been held in his case. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Sierpiński v. Poland (no. 38016/07)* In a judgment of 3 November 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in this case concerning a refusal by the Polish courts to set aside a decision to expropriate a plot of land he owned. It further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgment, the Court took note of the friendly settlement agreed between the parties in which 700,000 Polish zlotys (approximately EUR   170,000) are to be paid to the applicant in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, and struck the remainder of the case out of the list.   Just satisfaction Almeida Santos v. Portugal (no. 50812/06)* In a judgment of 6 October 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of a breach of the “equality of arms” principle in proceedings concerning the inventory and partition of an estate, 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 applicant EUR   30,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.   Ababei v. Romania (no. 34728/02) The applicant, Ştefan Ababei, is a Romanian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Bucharest. In February 1998 he was arrested on suspicion of fraud and forgery and, convicted as charged in December 2008, was sentenced to just over eight years and two months’ imprisonment. While those proceedings were pending against him, his company went into liquidation and was ultimately dissolved by the courts in March 2003. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Ababei complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses)   Karaarslan v. Turkey (no. 4027/05) The applicant, Utku Karaarslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Ankara. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained about the unfairness of proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court. In particular, he complained that he had not been allowed access to classified information submitted by the Ministry of Defence and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor had not been communicated to him. Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   540 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Chirò and Others v. Italy (No. 1) (no. 63620/00)* Chirò and Others v. Italy (No. 2) (no. 65137/01)* Chirò and Others v. Italy (No. 4) (no. 67196/01)* Chirò and Others v. Italy (No. 5) (no. 67197/01)* Dora Chirò v. Italy (no. 65272/01)* Gravina v. Italy (no. 60124/00)* La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 1) (no. 58119/00)* La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 3) (no. 58386/00)* La Rosa and Others v. Italy (No. 5) (no. 63239/00)* Maselli v. Italy (No. 2) (no. 61211/00)* In judgments of 11 October 2005, 15 November 2005 and 11 July 2006, the Court considered that the loss of possession of the land at issue amounted to expropriation, in breach of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. It accordingly held that in all ten cases there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The Court further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In its judgments today, the Court awarded the applicants (per case) sums ranging between EUR   1,000 and EUR   193,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   5,000 and EUR   30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 and EUR   25,000 for costs and expenses.   Ion Popescu v. Romania (no. 6332/04)* This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in his favour concerning the return of land. He relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Just satisfaction Solomonides v. Turkey (no. 16161/90) In a judgment of 20 January 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the applicant’s right of access to his property in the northern part of Cyprus, and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In its judgment today, the Court awarded the administrator of the applicant’s estate EUR   1,400,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   8,000 for costs and expenses.     Length-of-proceedings cases   Bartal v. Hungary (no. 8226/07) Füry v. Hungary (no. 38042/06) Gézáné Nagy v. Hungary (no. 20743/07) Gyárfás and Hunaudit Kft. v. Hungary (no. 15258/06) Zoltánné Kalmár v. Hungary (no. 16073/07) Pala Mobili Snc and Others v. Italy (nos. 26334/03, 26338/03, 26341/03, 26343/03 and 26344/03)* Alecu v. Romania (no. 28194/03)* In these cases, the applicants complained under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The judgments against Hungary, concerning issues which are the subject of well-established case law by the Court, were delivered by a three-judge Committee under the Court’s new procedures provided for in Protocol   No.   14 to the European Convention on Human Rights which entered into force on 1   June 2010. 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 [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 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.