CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 février 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 } .s553B90E2 { width:89.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5B9F672B { width:120.81pt; display:inline-block } .s6959D6CE { width:145.48pt; display:inline-block } .sA59F50BD { width:140.81pt; display:inline-block } .s1B75DE84 { width:120.78pt; display:inline-block } .s191E607D { width:163.48pt; display:inline-block } .s603EC422 { width:342.24pt; display:inline-block } .s70AA3140 { width:328.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     075   7.2.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France and Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 Chamber judgments of which only Meier v. France is final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Meier v. France (application no. 33023/96)   Friendly settlement On 15 February 1993 an order was made for the pre-trial detention of Beat Meier, a French national, on charges of offences against morality and failure to report child abuse. On 16   April 1993 he was also charged with indecent assault on a minor aged fifteen by a person in authority.   On 19 April 1993 the Swiss Government made a request for his extradition. On 27 April 1993 he was informed that he was being held under an arrest warrant issued by the Zürich Public Prosecutor's Office on charges of child abuse, pornography and unlawful entry into a person’s home.   On 13 December 1993 a committal warrant was issued against him for rape of a minor. On 29 July 1994 the investigating judge ordered the seizure of letters sent to him.   On 10 January 1995 the investigating judge committed the applicant for trial on counts of handling a paedophile cassette obtained by inciting a minor to immorality and failure to report abuse of a minor aged fifteen. On 3 April 1995 the Paris Criminal Court found the applicant guilty of the offences and imposed a fine of 10,000 French francs. Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed. On the same date the Santé Prison informed the applicant that although he was entitled to release for the offences for which he had been taken into custody on 15 February 1993 he would remain in custody at the request of the Swiss authorities. On 16 June 1995 the Paris Court of Appeal sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment.   In August and September 1995 the applicant applied for restitution of the correspondence that had been seized, as he wished to use it in a proposed autobiographical novel. It was not returned.   On 2 November 1995 the applicant was notified that his custodial status had changed and that he was to be released on 31 October 1995, as he had withdrawn an appeal to the Court of Cassation. By a decree dated 24 April 1996, the Prime Minister ordered the applicant's extradition to Switzerland. He was extradited on 3 June 1996.   The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of Article 5 (right to freedom and security) on account of his detention pending extradition and violations of Articles 8 (right to respect for his correspondence) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the seizure of his correspondence during his imprisonment.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant has been awarded the global sum of 40,000 French francs (FRF) for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Langlois v. France (no. 39278/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Bernard Langlois, a French national complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), about the length of civil proceedings (which have lasted more than 15 years and were still pending in June 2000) concerning compensation for periods when he was hospitalised in the 1950s.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 6,000 Euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     L.L.   v. France (no. 41943/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 L.L., a French national complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of two sets of civil proceedings, which have lasted almost five years and more than nine years and eight months and are still pending on 7 February 2002, concerning the purchase of an apartment.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     H. L.   v. France (no. 42189/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 H.L., a French national complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of three sets of administrative proceedings, which lasted eight years and more than eight months, eight years and more than three months and eight years, concerning a land consolidation scheme affecting plots of his land.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)         (5)     Beljanski v. France (no. 44070/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Mirko   Beljanski (now deceased), a French national complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of the judicial investigation (which lasted approximately six years) into his involvement in the development of a controversial anti-AIDS drug, PB 100.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant’s widow, Monique Beljanski, EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   SECTION 3   (6)     E. K. v. Turkey (no. 28496/95)   Violation Article 7     Violation Article 10     Violation Article 6 § 1 E.K., a Turkish citizen born in 1959 and living in Istanbul, is a lawyer and the owner of the Doz Basýn Yayýn Ltd Þti publishing house (“Doz”).   As secretary of the Istanbul section of the Human-Rights Association, she signed an article entitled “ Dünyanýn Kürt Halkýna Borcu var ” (“The world owes a debt to the Kurdish people"), which appeared in the Istanbul daily newspaper Özgür Gündem . A first set of criminal proceedings concerned that article. On 16 September 1994 the State Security Court convicted her under section 8 (1) and (2) of Law no.   3713. It sentenced her to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 250,000,000   Turkish liras (TRL), holding that she had expressed support in the article for the activities of the PKK and referred to part of the national territory as “Kurdistan”.   In October 1992 Doz published a book, which E.K. edited. A second set of criminal proceedings followed. On 9 September 1994 the State Security Court convicted her under section 8 (2) of Law no. 3713 and sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of TRL 50,000,000. It also ordered seizure of the publication. The State Security Court found that an article in the book undermined territorial integrity and the unity of the nation.   On 30 October 1995 Law no. 4126 came into force. It amended, among other provisions, section 8 of Law no. 3713. Under that Act, the State Security Court reviewed the merits of the applicant’s case and reached the same verdict as in its judgment of 9   September 1994. It again sentenced the applicant to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of TRL 50,000,000, but converted the prison sentence into a fine of TRL 50,900,000, suspended. On 4 August 1997 Law no. 4304 was enacted, which provided for the suspension of judgment and sentence in cases concerning offences committed before 12 July 1997 by editors of periodical publications. Under that Act, the Court of Cassation overturned the impugned judgment on 27   November 1997 and remitted the case for retrial before the lower court. On 25 December 1997 the State Security Court held, under section 1 (3) of Law no. 4304, that judgment should be suspended in the applicant’s case, and only delivered if the applicant was convicted, in her capacity as editor, of a new offence with intent within three years, otherwise the charges were to be dropped. The applicant complained that her conviction under section 8 (2) of Law no. 3713, in relation to the publication of the book, violated Article 7 (no punishment without law), as the law in question was too vague to be understood and because, under that law, prison sentences could be imposed only on editors of periodicals, newspapers and magazines and not books. She also maintained that her two convictions infringed her right to freedom of expression and that she had been denied a fair hearing, since the state security court that had twice convicted her included a military judge.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 7 concerning the applicant’s conviction as editor of the book, because, while her punishment was foreseeable, the application of a prison sentence to a book editor was not in accordance with the law.   The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 concerning both convictions. The article signed by the applicant did not incite hatred or condone violence and her punishment was harsh. Concerning the article in the book she had edited, nothing incited violence or opposed democratic principles. The book included all the speeches made at an international conference and the book had to be taken as a whole. In both cases the Court found the applicant’s punishment disproportionate.   Finally, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to an independent and impartial tribunal) concerning both sets of criminal proceedings, in view of the presence of a military judge.   The applicant was awarded EUR 10,700 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following eight Turkish cases, the applicants complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the length of the criminal proceedings against them (indicated in brackets [2] ).   In each case the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant EUR 15,250 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (7)     Uygur v. Turkey (no. 29911/96) (14 years and six months) (8)     Dinleten v. Turkey (no. 29699/96) (15 years, nine months and three weeks) (9)     Metinoğlu v. Turkey (no. 29700/96) (22 years and five months) (10)     Özcan v. Turkey (no. 29701/96) (21 years and 10 months) (11)     Sarıtaç v. Turkey (no. 29702/96) (15 years and 10 months) (12)     Zülal v. Turkey (no. 29703/96) (22 years, nine months and two weeks) (13)     Çilengir v. Turkey (no. 29912/96) (16 years) (14)     Binbir v. Turkey (no. 29913/96) (17 years)   ***   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] In each case the Court can only take into consideration the time that has elapsed since 28 January 1987 when Turkey recognised the right to individual petition; that is, almost 15 years in Metinoğlu v. Turkey, more than 14 years and 11 months in Özcan v. Turkey, almost 15 years in Zülal v. Turkey and almost eight years and three months in the five other cases.