CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 décembre 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 } .sD8444C16 { width:330.23pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6AC0F6D4 { width:22.13pt; display:inline-block } .sE1E781D { width:141.47pt; display:inline-block } .s6D12BCD4 { width:62.75pt; display:inline-block } .sB2D9E08D { width:112.41pt; display:inline-block } .sE19BD2FE { width:99.72pt; display:inline-block } .s9B100878 { width:35.92pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     968   18.12.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING the Czech Republic, France, Italy, Poland, Slovakia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments of which only Acar v. Turkey, Kemal Güngü v. Turkey and     Kuchař and Štis v. the Czech Republic are final [1] :   SECTION 2       Friendly settlements In the following two Turkish cases, the applicants, both Turkish nationals, complained, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the European Convention on Human Rights, of the delay in being brought before a judge following their arrest. Furthermore, relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complained of being ill-treated in police custody and of discrimination, relying on Article 14 (freedom from discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 3. They also complained they were denied a fair trial before Istanbul State Security Court, relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (c) (right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance of own choosing), taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14.   (1)     Acar v. Turkey (application no. 24940/94) (2)     Kemal Güngü v. Turkey (no. 24945/94)   The cases have 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 188,000 French francs (FRF) is to be paid to the applicant in the case of Acar v. Turkey and a global sum of FF 191,000 in the case of Kemal Güngü v. Turkey . (The judgments are only available in French.)   (3)     Kuchař and Štis v. the Czech Republic (no. 37527/97)   Friendly settlement Jiří Kuchař and Petr Štis, both Czech nationals, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), about the length of civil proceedings (which lasted four years, five months and 10 days) concerning compensation for breach of contract.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 62,932.50 Czech korunas is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     SAPL v. France (no. 37565/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, a development company, complained, relying on Article 6 §1, about the length of administrative proceedings (which have lasted more than nine years and four months and are still pending for two levels of jurisdiction) concerning compensation, after a development scheme in which the company was involved was abandoned.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 6,000 Euro for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,500 for costs and expenses. It held that it was unnecessary to examine the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (The judgment is available only in French.)   SECTION 4   (5)     R.D. v. Poland (nos. 29692/96 and 34612/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 R.D., a Polish national, complained that the refusal to grant him free legal assistance for the preparation of his cassation appeal meant he could not defend himself effectively and that he irrevocably lost an opportunity to have his case heard in cassation proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage and PLN 5000 less EUR 579.31 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (6)     Parciński v. Poland (no. 36250/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Roman Parciński, a Polish national born in 1951 and living in Ryn (Poland), complained about the length of civil proceedings which were started on 27 November 1990 (the Court can only take into consideration the period of time from 1 May 1993 [2] ) and are still pending, concerning compensation for a television which broke down.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant PLN 5,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)         (7)     Gajdúšek v. Slovakia (no. 40058/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Štefan Gajdúšek, a Slovakian national alleged, in particular, that his right to a hearing within a reasonable time was violated, in proceedings concerning property ownership. He relied on Article 6 § 1. The proceedings were started on 18 April 1989 (the Court can only consider the period of time from 18 March 1992 [3] ) and a judgment was delivered on 13 November 2001; it is not clear whether this decision has become final.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) for non-pecuniary damage and SKK 10,253 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 1   (8) Pupillo v. Italy (no. 41803/98)              Just satisfaction - revised judgment In its principal judgment in the case (8 February 2000) the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant, Vittorio Pupillo (now deceased), 13,000,000 Italian lire for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. On 16 March 2000 the Court was informed that Mr Pupillo had died prior to the notification of the Court’s judgment.   The Court has therefore held, unanimously that the just satisfaction as previously awarded should be awarded to Mr Pupillo’s heir Ornella Pupillo. (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. [2] When Poland recognised the right of individual petition. [3] When Slovakia recognised the right of individual petition.