CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 octobre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8EDBD821 { width:88.09pt; display:inline-block } .s99E91D17 { width:118.86pt; display:inline-block } .s1E711244 { width:88.15pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     694   2.10.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Cyprus, France, Turkey and the United Kingdom     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments (of which all but G.B.   v. France are final [1] ):   SECTION 1   (1)     Akbay v. Turkey (application no. 32598/96)   Friendly settlement On 7 August 1995 Abdulbaki Akbay, a Turkish national born in 1967, was arrested on suspicion, among other things, of having taken part in a Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) meeting. He was detained by the Istanbul Police from 7 to 15 August 1995 and then by the Tatvan Police for 22 days, where he confessed to being a PKK member and to having murdered a police officer. In a judgment of 4 March 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court found the applicant guilty of PKK membership and sentenced him to 12-and-a-half year’s imprisonment.   The applicant complained, relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), that he was ill-treated while in police custody. He further complained, relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) §§ 1 c), 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, that he was not brought promptly before a judge and that he was tortured while being questioned. Finally, he complained under Article 6 §§ 1, and 3 a) (right to be informed promptly of the accusation against him), b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence) and c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) that, while in police custody, he was not informed of the charges against him and had neither the time nor the facilities to prepare his defence nor the assistance of a lawyer. He also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the Turkish Government have made the following declaration:   “The Government regret the occurrence, as in the case in question, of individual examples of ill-treatment of people in police custody by the authorities, notwithstanding the Turkish legislation in place and the Government’s determination to prevent such events. “The Government accept that subjecting detainees to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment breaches Article 3 of the Convention, and they undertake to issue appropriate instructions and to adopt all necessary measures to ensure future compliance with the prohibition of such types of ill-treatment - which implies an obligation to conduct effective investigations.”   A global sum of 250,000 French francs (FRF) is to be paid to the applicant. (The judgment is only available in French.)     SECTION 3   (2)     Duyonov and others v. the United Kingdom (no. 36670/97) Friendly settlement German Duyonov, Alexy Mirza, Vadim Sprygin and Nikolai Ivanov, all Georgian nationals, who were trying to leave Georgia to seek political asylum in Canada, arrived in Gibraltar on 17 November 1995. They applied for asylum. The Governor of Gibraltar ordered them to be removed from Gibraltar and for their detention pending removal. The applicants applied for leave to appeal and legal aid, which was granted for preparation of the appeal but refused for the proceedings before the Privy Council. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 about the absence of legal aid in these proceedings.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 5,000 pounds sterling is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Kounounis v. Cyprus (no. 37943/97)   Friendly settlement Antonis Kounounis, a Cypriot national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), about the length of civil proceedings (which lasted almost 10 years and two months) brought against him by the administrators of an estate belonging to a man who had died in a clinic belonging to the applicant.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 27,000 Cypriot pounds is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (4)     G.B.   v. France (no. 44069/98)   Violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 b) The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against G.B., a French national, who was ultimately convicted of the rape of his 15-year-old niece and indecent assault of several under-age victims including certain of his nephews.   During his trial before the cour d’assises, new documents were produced concerning the applicant’s past. After seeing the evidence, one of the expert witnesses, who had told the court that G.B. was “not dangerous in a psychological sense” and that he could be rehabilitated, stated that G.B. was without doubt a paedophile likely to re-offend, that the length of detention had no effect on the type of individual who felt no guilt and that imprisonment was the only way of protecting society. G.B. was sentenced to 18 year’s imprisonment. G.B. complained that he did not have a fair trial before the cour d’assises because his defence counsel was not given sufficient time to study the documents in question, because the expert changed his opinion on the strength of it and because his request for a new expert opinion was rejected.   The European Court of Human Rights found that G.B. had had the time and facilities necessary to prepare his defence in the light of the new evidence. However the Court also found that the expert’s volte-face coupled with the refusal to allow a new expert opinion violated G.B.’s right to a fair trial and his defence rights. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 3 b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence) and awarded the applicant FRF 90,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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.