CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s86AC02D9 { width:333.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFCB88CFC { width:30.06pt; display:inline-block } .s1CDC23B7 { width:231.58pt; display:inline-block } .s80D91CF4 { width:394.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9FA5A0EE { width:92.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA7A9E2F1 { width:144.82pt; display:inline-block } .sB347D098 { width:96.79pt; display:inline-block } .sE50BFCA8 { width:103.5pt; 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     094   21.2.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Switzerland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18 Chamber judgments of which only the friendly settlements are final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Ghidotti v. Italy   (application no. 28272/95) Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Lidia Ghidotti, an Italian national, complained about her prolonged inability, through lack of police assistance, to recover possession of her flat. The proceedings lasted six years and six months 2 .   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Friendly settlements The applicants in the following 10 cases, who are all Italian nationals, complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 [2] .   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts, in Italian lire (ITL), are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (2)     Lamperi Balenci v. Italy (no. 31260/96) 14 years and three months to evict the tenant ITL 46,000,000 (3)     Guglielmi v. Italy (no.2) (no. 31480/96) almost 12 years ITL 40,000,000 (4)     Pezza v. Italy (no. 31525/96) almost 15 years ITL 35,000,000 (5)     Colucci v. Italy (no. 31605/96) almost 11 years ITL 20,000,000 (6)     Celona v. Italy (no. 32541/96) just over 14 years and eight months ITL 45,000,000 (7)     B. and F. v. Italy (no. 32671/96) seven years and eight months ITL 12,500,000 to each applicant (8)     De Filippis v. Italy (no. 33967/96) almost eight years and seven months ITL 7,000,000 (9)     Pane v. Italy (no. 37509/97) just over 10 years and seven months ITL 4,500,000 to each applicant (10)     Tiberio v. Italy (no. 38656/97) almost 10 years and eight months ITL 20,000,000 (11)     Stoppini v. Italy (no. 39716/98) just over nine years and three months ITL 38,000,000   SECTION 3     (12)     Matyar v. Turkey (no. 23423/94)   No violation Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14, 18   No violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The facts in the case are disputed by the parties. İzzet Matyar, a Turkish national, alleges that, in July 1993, his house and property were damaged and crops burned, following an armed attack on his village, Basoğ, in the province of Şirnak in South-East Turkey. Two people were killed and other houses and crops were set on fire. The applicant claims village guards were responsible, supported by a helicopter gunship under the direction of the Silvan Gendarme Headquarters and gendarmes from Bayrambası. The Government submit that an armed clash broke out between villagers from Boyunlu, a village near Basoğ, and PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) terrorists, who then fled through Ormandışı, firing their guns at random and killing two people.     The applicant submitted that the armed attack, the experience of being forced to flee from his home and the failure of the State to adequately regulate the village guard system or to investigate allegations of serious ill-treatment breached Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment). He also submitted that the deliberate attack on his family’s home, the forced expulsion from their village, the destruction of their property and crops violated Article 8 (right to respect for family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He further relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) and alleged that he has been intimidated in respect of his application, relying on former Article 25 (Article 34) of the Convention.   The Court found that the evidence supported the village guards’ account of how events began with a clash with the PKK outside Ormandışı. Gendarmes arrived to support the village guards and pursue the terrorists. The Court was not prepared to make any further findings as to what occurred within Ormandışı. The Court did not find sufficient, consistent or reliable evidence to establish, to the necessary degree of proof, that the village guards or gendarmes damaged the applicant’s home and property as alleged. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Articles 3, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Finding that there was an insufficient factual basis to enable it to conclude that the Turkish authorities had intimidated or threatened the applicant in circumstances calculated to induce him to withdraw or modify his complaint or otherwise interfere with the exercise of his right of individual petition, the Court also held, by four votes to three, that Turkey had not failed to comply with its obligations under former Article 25 § 1.   (The judgment is available only in English.)       (13)     Hasan Yılmaz and others v. Turkey (no. 26309/95, 26310/95, 26311/95 & 26313/95)   Struck out Hasan Yılmaz, Murat Boğakan, Ahmet Avcıkaya and Hasan Gönderici are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1964, 1969, 1970 and 1973 respectively. They live in Istanbul, with the exception of Mr Boğakan, who lives at Bingöl.   Between 19 and 23 August 1994 they were arrested and taken into custody at security headquarters in Istanbul, on suspicion of having given assistance to an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK. At the request of senior security officers, an order was obtained for them to be retained in custody until 1 September.   On 31 August 1994 the applicants were examined by an expert in forensic medicine. In his report the expert said: no trace of blows or violence had been found on the bodies of the first and fourth applicants; the second applicant had a superficial lesion on the outer arm, lesions with a 1 cm x 4 cm scab in the left lumbar region and a 0.2 cm x 3   cm scab on the right shoulder; the third applicant had a 0.5 cm x 3 cm vertical lesion on the front of the left shoulder, a 1 cm x 2 cm bruise under the left eye and haemorrhaging to the cornea.   Proceedings were brought against the applicants for assisting and supporting an illegal organisation (Article 169 of the Criminal Code). On 26 October 1995 the Istanbul National Security Court acquitted the first applicant on the ground that there was insufficient evidence. It found the other applicants guilty of the offences and sentenced them to three years’ and nine months’ imprisonment.   The second, third and fourth applicants lodged criminal complaints against the police officers who had held them in custody, alleging that they had subjected them to ill-treatment during questioning. On the basis of an indictment dated 14 December 1995 the public prosecutor instituted proceedings against six police officers in the assize court. He accused them of having inflicted ill-treatment on the applicants contrary to Article 243 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to use torture to extract a confession from suspects. On the 23   October 1996, the Istanbul Assize Court acquitted the officers.   The applicants alleged that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Given the applicants’ failure to reply to its letters, however, the Court concluded that they no longer wish to pursue their application. Further, finding that the application raised no particular human rights requiring the Court to continue its examination of the application, within the terms of Article 37 § 1 (a), the Court decided, unanimously, to strike out the case. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (14)     Marks and Ordinateur Express v. France (no. 47575/99) Violation Article 6 § 1 Richard Marks, a British and American national, and Ordinateur Express, a company based in Paris, complained about the length of civil proceedings (which have lasted more than 15 years and are still pending) concerning commission for computer sales.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the first applicant 7,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,300 to both applicants for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (15)     Sipavičius v. Lithuania (no. 49093/99)   No violation Article 6 Stasys Sipavičius, a Lithuanian national born in 1950 and living in Kaunas, is a police commissioner. Suspected of involvement in a conspiracy to smuggle non-ferrous metals, he was arrested on 18 August 1995 and charged with obtaining property by deception ( sukčiavimas ) under Article 274 of the Criminal Code and abuse of office ( piktnaudžiavimas tarnyba ) under Article 285 of the Code.   On 22 May 1998 Vilnius Regional Court acquitted him of the charge of obtaining property by deception. However, the judge found him guilty of official negligence ( tarnybos pareigų neatlikimas dėl nerūpestingumo ), under Article 288 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment (later reduced to eight months) and deprived of the right to occupy an official position in the system of law enforcement. He appealed unsuccessfully.   Mr Sipavičius complained that the proceedings against him were unfair, because the reclassification of the offence for which he was prosecuted prevented him from exercising his defence rights properly. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing.)   The Court noted that the applicant had been entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which had reviewed his complaints about the reclassification of the charge from both the procedural and substantive point of view. It had not been alleged that the appeal court lacked power to quash the conviction and acquit the applicant, or that the applicant was unable to defend himself against the reformulated charge. It had also to be noted that the conviction became effective under the domestic criminal procedure only after the pronouncement of the decision of the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the case was then reviewed by the Supreme Court, which also examined the substantive and procedural elements of the reclassification, and was competent to afford the applicant the relief he sought. The fact that the applicant’s pleadings against the reclassification were unsuccessful did not indicate that the review procedures were inadequate.   The Court considered that the applicant had the opportunity to advance before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court his defence in respect of the reformulated charge. Assessing the fairness of the proceedings as a whole, the Court was also satisfied that any defects in the proceedings before the Regional Court were cured by way of the review procedures. The Court was therefore convinced that the applicant’s right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence were not infringed. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (16)     Meleddu v. Italy (no. 54307/00)   Friendly settlement Luciana   Meleddu, an Italian national, complained about the length of civil proceedings concerning the application for full payment of her pension together with all statutory increases in lieu of the part and provisional payments she had been receiving since 1 April 1986 when she had retired. She relied on Article 6 § 1.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which ITL 6,000,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)       SECTION 4   (17)     Ziegler v. Switzerland (no. 33499/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Jost and Martin Ziegler are Swiss citizens born in 1950 and 1957 and living in Siebnen and Lachen (Switzerland) respectively.   In 1994 they announced their intention to construct an underground garage in Lachen. The neighbours complained, arguing that certain prescribed boundary distances between their properties had not been respected. Their objection was dismissed by the March District Court ( Bezirksgericht ) on 19 July 1994.   The neighbours filed an appeal with Schwyz Cantonal Court, which was dismissed. However, the court found that the applicants’ plans had been incomplete, even incorrect, and ordered the applicants to pay costs amounting to 11,450.50 Swiss francs. The applicants filed a public law appeal with the Federal Court, which asked the Cantonal Court and the neighbours for observations. The applicants’ request for leave to reply to these observations was refused by the Federal Court and their public law appeal was subsequently dismissed.   The applicants complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, that, in the proceedings before the Federal Court, they could not reply to the submissions of the Cantonal Court or of the opposing party and that they could not consult the case-file.   The Court noted that, as the observations of the lower instance came from an independent tribunal which had a thorough knowledge of the file (having previously considered the merits of the case), it was unlikely that the Federal Court would have paid them no heed. The observations of the opposing party equally contained a reasoned opinion on the merits of the applicants’ public law appeal.   Finding, therefore, that the applicants should have been given an opportunity to comment on the observations in question, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court did not accept, however, that the applicants had been unable to consult the case-file before the Federal Court. The Court held that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. It awarded them 4,500 Swiss francs for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (18)     Victorino d’Almeida v. Portugal (no. 43487/98)   Struck out António Victorino d’Almeida, a Portuguese national born in 1940 and living in Lisbon complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of administrative proceedings he instituted against a decision by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to terminate his contract as cultural attaché at the Portuguese embassy in Vienna.   The Court has struck out the case after being informed that Mr Victorino d’Almeida wished to withdraw his application, having reached an agreement with the Portuguese Government. (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] The period given is calculated from when the writ was served on the tenant.