CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADCBB328 { width:29.23pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sEBE9E880 { width:6.56pt; display:inline-block } .s46D0E261 { width:11.92pt; display:inline-block } .sFF596A0C { width:10.57pt; display:inline-block } .sD7BD576E { width:24.57pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB4D5CB4E { width:4.94pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   777   30.10.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France, Turkey, Portugal and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 20 Chamber judgments (of which only the friendly settlements are final [1] ):   Section 1   (1)     Saki v. Turkey (no. 29359/95)                     Friendly settlement Özgül Saki, a Turkish national, alleged that, while she was in the hands of the police, between 8.50 a.m. and 10 p.m. on 1 May 1994, she was physically and mentally abused. She complained that she had been a victim of a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights has struck out the case after a friendly settlement was agreed, including the following declaration from the Turkish Government: “The Government regret the occurrence, as in the present case, of individual examples of ill-treatment by the authorities of persons detained in custody, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such occurrences. It is accepted that the recourse to ill-treatment of detainees constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and the Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that prohibition of such forms of ill-treatment   - including the obligation to carry out effective investigations - is respected in the future.”   The applicant has been awarded, on an ex gratia basis, the global sum of 55,000 French francs (FRF) for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 In the following 12 cases the applicants complained about the length of criminal proceedings against them. In each case the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded each applicant between FRF 70,000 and FRF 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage and up to FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.) (2)     Bürkev v. Turkey (application no. 26480/95) (3)     Kanbur v. Turkey   (no. 28291/95) (4)     Başpınar v. Turkey (no. 29280/95) (5)     Hasan Yağız v. Turkey (no. 31834/96) (6)     Adıyaman v. Turkey (no. 31880/96) (7)     Genç v. Turkey (no. 31891/96) (8)     Pekdaş v. Turkey (no. 31960/96) (9)     Akçam v. Turkey (no. 32964/96) (10)     Keskin v. Turkey (no. 32987/96) (11)     Karademir v. Turkey (no. 32990/96) (12)     Akyazı v. Turkey (no. 33362/96) (13)     İnan v. Turkey (no. 39428/98)   (14)     Erdemli v. Turkey (no. 29495/95)                  Friendly settlement Hasan Erdemli, a Turkish national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial, in that, during questioning by the police, public prosecutor and magistrate, he did not have legal assistance.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which FRF 35,000 is to be paid on an ex gratia basis for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Friendly settlements In the following three French cases the applicants complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of criminal proceedings against them. The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which FRF 40,000 is to be paid to each applicant. (The judgments are available only in French.)   (15)     Ivars v. France (no. 49350/99) (16)     Guelfucci v. France (no. 49352/99) (17)     Dunan v. France (no. 49342/99)   Section 3   (18)     Devlin v. the United Kingdom (no. 29545/95)             Violation Article 6 § 1 In June 1991, Francis William Devlin, an Irish national, applied for a position as an administrative assistant with the Northern Ireland Civil Service. On 15 September 1992 he was informed that he was being recommended for appointment “subject to the satisfactory outcome of various pre-appointment enquiries”. He was informed on 21 October 1992 that he had been unsuccessful. On 21 September 1993, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a certificate under section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, certifying that the refusal of employment was “for the purpose of safeguarding national security and of protecting public safety”. Mr Devlin’s application for judicial review concerning the Secretary of State’s decision was rejected.   He alleges that his appointment was blocked, not on legitimate national security grounds, but because he is a Catholic and a member of an association known as the Irish National Foresters. He complained principally that he was deprived of the right to have his claim determined by a court. The Court noted that at no stage of the proceedings brought by the applicant was there any independent scrutiny by the relevant fact-finding bodies of the facts which led the Secretary of State to issue the conclusive certificate. No evidence as to why the applicant was considered a security risk was ever presented to the Fair Employment Tribunal, nor was there any scrutiny of the factual basis of the Secretary of State’s decision in the proceedings for judicial review brought in the High Court. Finding that the issue by the Secretary of State of a section 42 certificate constituted a disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right of access to a court, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court).   The Court did not consider it necessary to examine further the applicant’s other complaints and awarded him 10,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for non-pecuniary damage and GBP 12,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (19)     Pannullo and Forte v. France (no. 37794/97)         Violation Article 8 Following the death of their four-year-old daughter Erika in hospital on 24 June 1996, the applicants, Vincenzo Pannullo and Caterina Forte, both Italian nationals, complained, in particular, about the delay by the French authorities in returning her body to them. The autopsy was carried out on 9 July 1996 and a judge ordered that Erika’s body be returned to her parents on 14 February 1997.   Whether or not the seven-month delay was attributable to the experts involved or to the judge’s poor understanding of the medical evidence, in view of the dramatic circumstances surrounding the applicants’ loss of their child, the Court found that the French authorities had not struck the right balance between the applicants’ right to a private and family life and the need to conduct an effective investigation into Erika’s death.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life). The applicants were awarded FRF 18,667 in total for pecuniary damage, FRF 100,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 54,100 in total for costs and expenses. (The judgment is only available in French.)   Section 4   (20)     Sousa Miranda v. Portugal (no. 43658/98)           Violation Article 6 § 1 João Carlos Sousa Miranda, a Portuguese national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings, which lasted approximately six years and nine months, concerning a traffic accident in which he was involved.   The Court   held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 800,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) for non-pecuniary damage and PTE 250,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is only available 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.