CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 septembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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 }   680 21.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Italy, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   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.     Popa v. Moldova (application no. 29772/05) The applicant, Tatiana Popa, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1976 and lives in Chişinău (Moldova). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms   Popa alleged that she had been beaten by the police when arrested and taken to a police station in July 2004 for drunk and disorderly behaviour. Violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: 3,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)     Garzičič v. Montenegro (no. 17931/07) The applicant, Desanka Garzičić, is a Montenegrin national who was born in 1924 and lives in Podgorica (Montenegro). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court) of the Convention, Ms   Garzičič complained about the Supreme Court’s rejection of her appeal on points of law concerning a property-related claim as it considered that the court fees she had paid did not correspond to the established values of her claim. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Mijušković v. Montenegro (no. 49337/07) The applicant, Svetlana Mijušković, is a Montenegrin national who was born in 1971 and lives in Budva (Montenegro). The case concerned the lengthy non-enforcement of a final judgment awarding the applicant custody of her twins, born in 1998, following her ex-husband’s refusal to return the children to her since January 2005. She also complained that a prior interim custody order had not been enforced either. The children were finally surrendered to the applicant in November 2009. She relied on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Deeg v. Poland (no. 39489/08) The applicant, Wojciech Deeg, is a Polish national who was born in 1981 and is currently serving a two year and three months’ sentence for robbery at a remand centre in Gdańsk. Relying on Article   6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr   Deeg complained about the excessive length – ten years and seven months – of the criminal proceedings against him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 900 (costs and expenses)   Mazgaj v. Poland (no. 41656/02) The applicant, Grzegorz Mazgaj, is a Polish national who was born in 1928 and lives in Włodawa (Poland). Accused of murder, Mr   Mazgaj was remanded in custody in June 2000. He was released in January 2001 and, subsequently acquitted, was granted compensation for unlawful detention in September 2005, as the courts recognised that the sole basis for his detention had been statements made by his mentally-ill son which could not be considered reliable evidence. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained in particular about restrictions on contact with his family during his detention. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 865 (costs and expenses)   Santos Couto v. Portugal (no. 31874/07)* The applicant, Mr Fernando dos Santos Couto, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1948 and lives in Lisbon. On the basis of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken in conjunction with Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), he argued that his conviction for homosexual activities with adolescents had been discriminatory as it had been based on his sexual orientation. No violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8   Băjănaru v. Romania (no. 884/04)* The applicant, Ms Floarea Băjănaru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Bucharest. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), she complained of the delay in enforcing final rulings in her favour concerning the recovery of possession of a plot of land. She relied also on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), complaining of the loss of earnings she had sustained as a result of her inability to secure possession of the land. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage)   Ballai v. Romania (no. 37188/06 ) * The applicant, Mr Ştefan Ballai, is a Romanian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Cluj-Napoca. On 21   December 1989, during the anti-communist demonstrations in the city of Cluj-Napoca – which resulted in the death of 22   demonstrators with a further 79   seriously injured – the applicant’s son was shot and killed by members of the military. Following criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant in 1990, the officers in question received prison sentences for murder, which were upheld in 2006. Relying in particular on Article   6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Ballai complained that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   SC Placebo Consult SRL v. Romania (no. 28529/04)* The applicant, SC Placebo Consult SRL, is a Romanian company with its registered office in Craiova. Relying on Article   6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant company complained in particular of the length of the proceedings it had brought seeking an award of damages against another company, and alleged that the setting-aside of the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice by the High Court of Cassation and Justice had infringed the principle of legal certainty. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,240 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 250 (costs and expenses)   Marcos Barrios v. Spain (no. 17122/07)* The applicant, Mr Manuel Angel Marcos Barrios, is a Spanish national who was a minor at the relevant time. He was born in 1984 and lives in León. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complained of having been convicted of murder on appeal without a public hearing being held, after being acquitted at first instance. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: dismissed   Tuksal and Others v. Turkey (nos. 57711/08, 59325/08, 59334/08, 59351/08, 60153/08, 60155/08, 60157/08, 60159/08, 60160/08, 60173/08, 60181/08, 60184/08, 60197/08, 60200/08, 60202/08, 60213/08, 60220/08, 60226/08, 61540/08, 61544/08, 61557/08, 61566/08, 61591/08, 1862/09, 1903/09, 1906/09, 2003/09, 2005/09, 2010/09, 2012/09, 2018/09, 2022/09, 3679/09, 10279/09, 13325/09, 16456/09 et 17955/09)* The 37 applicants were employees of State-owned banks at the relevant time and were civil servants. In the context of the restructuring of State-owned financial institutions aimed in particular at privatising the banks in question, they were redeployed in various State bodies. Relying on Article   6 (right to a fair hearing), they complained that they had not been informed in advance of the opinion of the public prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court during the administrative proceedings which they had brought. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: - the finding of a violation sufficient,for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - costs and expenses EUR 50   Kay and Others v. United Kingdom (no. 37341/06) The applicants are eight British nationals and one Irish national who live in London. Their leases of housing units owned by the London Borough of Lambeth, which had been provided to the applicants by a charitable housing trust under a special scheme, were terminated in 1999. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private life), the applicants complained of the possession proceedings brought by Lambeth against them and of the fact that they had been unable to challenge the possession orders. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000, each (non-pecuniary damage) and a total of EUR   13,500 (costs and expenses)   Kevin O’Dowd v. the United Kingdom (no. 7390/07) The applicant, Kevin Kenneth O’Dowd, is a British national who was born in 1946 and lives in London. A recidivist sex offender, Mr O’Dowd essentially complained of the length of his pre-trial detention and the refusal of bail in criminal proceedings against him for rape, false imprisonment and indecent assault. He relied in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to right to liberty and security). No violation of Article 5 § 3   Szypusz v. United Kingdom (no. 8400/07) The applicant, Mr Simeon Szypusz, is a British national who was born in 1985 and is currently detained in Nottingham. Sentenced to 25   years in prison for attempted murder, he complained that the criminal proceedings against him had not been fair, because a police officer responsible for operating video equipment had been permitted to remain alone with the jury for almost two hours while they viewed important video evidence in his case. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). No violation of Article 6 § 1     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Turgay and Others v. Turkey (Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 ) (nos. 13710/08, 16345/08, 19652/08, 21950/08, 23173/08, 23182/08, 23200/08, 29572/08, 55180/08, 55427/08, 56294/08, 60443/08, 61438/08, 32869/08, 35022/08 and 39904/08) These four cases concerned the applicants’ complaints about the suspension of the publication and dissemination of their newspapers, considered propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. The applicants relied in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Violation of Article 10 in each case     Length-of-proceedings cases   Conceria mandera SRL v. Italy (no. 3978/03)* Pastuszenia v. Poland (no. 46074/07) Vasiliu v. Romania (no. 29248/04)* Mošať v. Slovakia (no. 27452/05) Şenyürek and Şahin and 17 other applications v. Turkey (nos. 34986/05, 34987/05, 35070/05, 41921/06, 44922/06, 44959/06, 44979/06, 44983/06, 45016/06, 45069/06, 45096/06, 45100/06, 45115/06, 45127/06, 50158/06, 50159/06, 10878/07 and 24160/08) 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. In the case of 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.