CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 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 } .s7B87D90D { width:74.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9486DCB2 { width:96.15pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sAAA0B4EC { width:314.23pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     103   26.2.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France, Switzerland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments of which only Kaplan v. Turkey is final [1] :     SECTION 2   (1)     Kaplan v. Turkey (application no. 24932/94)     Friendly settlement Faruk Kaplan is a Turkish national who was born in 1950. He lived in Istanbul at the material time.   He alleged that he was arrested and taken into custody on 10 February 1994. However, according to the Government, he was arrested on 11 February 1994 as part of a police operation against an illegal organisation, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). On 18 February 1994 he was questioned by the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court before being brought before a judge of that court, who made an order for his detention pending trial. The prosecutor accused the applicant of aiding and abetting the PKK and asked the court to apply Article 169 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). On 30 December 1995 the applicant was released on bail. The Court has no other information concerning the proceedings before the state security court, other than that they appeared to have ended with a Court of Cassation decision on 29 February 2000.   The applicant alleged, among other things, that he had been the victim of a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that he had not been brought before a judge “immediately” after arrest. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, he also complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody, had suffered discrimination, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 5, and, lastly, that he had been denied a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), taken alone or together with Article 14, before the state security court.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant has been awarded, on an ex gratia basis, the global sum of 24,000 French francs for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     H.M. v. Switzerland (no. 39187/98)     No violation Article 5 § 1 H.M, a Swiss national born in 1912, is a pensioner, who was living in a house belonging to He.M., one of her two sons, in Lyss in the Canton of Bern. She received help from the Lyss Association for House and Sick Visits as from 1987. In 1989 He.M. moved in. From 29 February 1996 the house visits were stopped because certain conditions had not been respected, concerning access to the house, heating, washing and meals. From March 1996 the house doctor also stopped visiting.   On 17 December Aarberg District Government Office ordered, against the applicant’s will, that she be placed for an unlimited time in a nursing home, on the ground of serious neglect. Both she and her son appealed, unsuccessfully. The Appeal Commission found that the placement was justified on the grounds both of neglect and that the applicant had senile dementia. On 14 January 1998 the placement order was lifted after she agreed to stay in the   nursing home willingly.   The applicant complained about being placed in a home against her will, claiming that she could wash and dress herself, that her son could cook for her and that she did not want him to be left alone. In the nursing home she was no longer free to decide where she lived, to take decisions concerning her everyday life, or to go home.     She complained she was unlawfully deprived of her liberty, in that Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention only cites “vagrancy”, and not neglect, as a ground of detention. She contended that she did not meet the conditions of vagrancy, as, at the time of her placement, she had a home and received a pension. She complained that, when the Association for House and Sick Visits stopped assisting her at home, her health deteriorated, thus providing the authorities with an opportunity to place her in a nursing home. Concerning the Appeals Commission view of her mental condition, she pointed out that she had been denied the right to reply before the Commission and that she had not been examined by a medical expert.   The Court noted that the applicant had had an opportunity to receive care in her own home, but that she and her son had refused to co-operate. Subsequently, her living conditions had deteriorated to such an extent that the authorities had decided to take action. The appeals commission carefully reviewed the circumstances of the case and decided that the nursing home in question, which was in an area familiar to the applicant, could provide her with the necessary care. The applicant was also able to maintain social contact with the outside world while in the home. The Court further noted that, after the applicant had moved to the nursing home, she had agreed to stay there.   The Court concluded that the applicant’s placement in the nursing home was a responsible measure taken by the competent authorities in the applicant’s own interests, in order to provide her with the necessary medical care and adequate living conditions. It did not, therefore, amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1. Finding that Article 5 § 1 was not applicable, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)     SECTION 3     No violation Article 6 § 1 In the following two cases - both brought by French nationals, Marie-Françoise Del Sol and Ahmed Essaadi - the applicants’ requests for legal aid for their appeals on points of law were refused. The reason given in both cases was that there were no serious grounds for the appeals.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the system established by the French legislature offered individuals substantive guarantees to protect them from arbitrariness. Firstly, the Legal Aid Office of the Court of Cassation was presided over by a judge of that court and also included its senior registrar, two members chosen by the Court of Cassation, two civil servants, two members of the Conseil d’État and Court of Cassation Bar and a member appointed by users. Secondly, an appeal could be made to the President of the Court of Cassation against refusals of legal aid. Furthermore, in each set of proceedings the applicants were able to have their cases heard by two levels of jurisdiction in turn. The Court therefore found that the refusal of the Legal Aid Office to grant the applicants legal aid to appeal to the Court of Cassation did not breach their right of access to a court.   The Court held, by five votes to two, in both cases, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court). (The judgments are available only in French.)   (3)     Del Sol v. France (no. 46800/99) (4)     Essaadi v. France (no. 49384/99)   ***   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.