CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 31 janvier 2002

.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 } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s70AA3140 { width:328.89pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s18D73244 { width:148.81pt; display:inline-block } .sD0B8D6F9 { width:106.14pt; 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     060   31.1.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Austria, Turkey and Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, of which only Özbey v. Turkey is final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Lanz v. Austria (application no. 24430/94)   Violation Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c),   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 5 § 4   On 25 October 1991 the Investigating Judge at Graz Regional Court ( Landesgericht ) issued a warrant for the arrest of Bernhard Lanz, an Austrian national, on suspicion of having committed fraud and of falsifying documents in relation to his business activities. The investigating judge questioned the applicant and ordered his detention on remand to avoid him absconding or any collusion. On 11 November 1997 the investigating judge ordered that the applicant’s communications with his defence counsel take place under the surveillance of the Court.   On 21   June   1992 Graz Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. It also acquitted him of an additional charge of fraud raised by the Public Prosecutor. The applicant appealed and filed a plea of nullity, both of which were dismissed.   The Public Prosecutor also filed a plea of nullity against the part of the judgment concerning the applicant’s acquittal and an appeal against his sentence. On 30 August 1993 the Graz Court of Appeal granted the appeal and increased the applicant’s sentence to five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.   The applicant maintains that his right to a defence was prejudiced because his contacts with his defence counsel during the first two months of his detention on remand were under the surveillance of the investigating judge. He also complains that, during the criminal proceedings against him, certain written observations were not communicated to him and that, in the proceedings concerning his requests for release, the prosecution made submissions to which he had no possibility to reply.   The European Court of Human Rights Court observed that surveillance by the investigating judge of a detainee’s contacts with his defence counsel was a serious interference with an accused’s defence rights and very weighty reasons had to be given for its justification. However, the domestic courts had merely relied on a risk of collusion - the reason for which detention on remand had already been ordered. The restriction on contacts with defence counsel for a person already in detention on remand was an additional measure which required further arguments. Finding that the Austrian courts or Government had not provided convincing arguments in that respect, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence) and (c) (right to defend self through legal assistance of own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, during the criminal proceedings, on account of the Attorney-General’s submission of observations to the Supreme Court without the applicant’s knowledge and the Senior Public Prosecutor’s submissions to the Court of Appeal.   Noting that, in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s requests for release, a written comment from the Senior Public Prosecutor was submitted but not served on the applicant, the Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   The applicant was awarded 3,000 Euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 493.96 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Özbey v. Turkey (no. 31883/96)   Friendly settlement   On 27 January 1995 police arrested Hasan Özbey - a Turkish national - with a woman and took them into police custody at the anti-terrorist branch of the security police headquarters in Ankara.   According to the arrest report drawn up by the police officers who had arrested them, but which they did not sign, the police officers, who had been informed of the distribution of illegal leaflets, had suspected a man and a woman and had arrested them. Having discovered leaflets signed by the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front/Party), notes, magazines and other documents, they requested the applicant and the woman with him to go to the police station. When they attempted to flee, they were compelled by force to get into the car. Subsequently, when they were taken out of the car, they threw themselves onto the ground and were made to go into the police station by the police officers, again by force.   Two-and-a-half hours after the arrest the applicant was examined by a doctor. His report recorded injury marks. Later, he drew up a final report and certified the applicant unfit for work for seven days. On 8 February 1995 the applicant was examined again and the doctor recorded injury marks. On 20 February and 14 April 1995 the ENT neurological and auditory tests which had been carried out on the applicant at Ankara Hospital showed a perforation of the left eardrum. In a report dated 26 April 1995 the Ankara forensic office considered that the after-effects from which Mr Özbey was suffering were not life-endangering and put him on sick leave for seven days.   On 6 February 1995 the applicant was brought before a judge at the Ankara National Security Court who ordered him to be placed in detention pending trial. The applicant protested his innocence to the judge and claimed that the police had subjected him to ill-treatment while he had been in police custody.   On 2 June 1995 the National Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge with the rank of colonel, sentenced the applicant to three years and nine months’ imprisonment under Article 169 of the Criminal Code which makes it an offence to lend assistance to an armed gang.   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.”   The applicant has also been awarded a global sum of 100,000 French francs for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   SECTION 3   (3)     Guerreiro v. Portugal (no. 45560/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   José da Conceição Guerreiro, a Portuguese national born in 1951 and living in Setúbal (Portugal) complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), about the length of civil proceedings which lasted 14 years and two months, concerning compensation for breach of contract.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,500 for non-pecuniary and 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.