CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 juin 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s51293567 { width:26.53pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sAC76773E { width:115.44pt; display:inline-block } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .sAF7EE609 { width:354.4pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s3D51B655 { width:126.14pt; display:inline-block } .s747AF4BE { width:18.75pt; display:inline-block } .sF2D8F73C { width:10.09pt; display:inline-block } .s949E9E2C { width:144.14pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7E795CD9 { width:43.48pt; display:inline-block } .s56847DD4 { width:31.4pt; display:inline-block } .s3068FB2F { width:269.55pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s255E35BB { width:143.49pt; 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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     323   20.6.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Turkey, Greece, Austria, Cyprus and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly settlement judgments are final: [1]   Section 1   (1)     Ali   Erol v. Turkey (application no. 35076/97)                 Friendly settlement Ali Erol, a Turkish journalist, was born in 1952 and lives in Istanbul. On 5 September 1995 the daily newspaper Evrensel (“Universal”), of which he was the editor, published an article by Semih Hiçyılmaz entitled “War on the palaces, peace to the slums” (“Saraylara savaş, kulübelere barış” ). At the request of the Chief Public Prosecutor, the issues of that newspaper were seized pursuant to an urgent interim order against which the applicant unsuccessfully appealed. Mr Erol was prosecuted for inciting to hatred and hostility based on membership of a social class, region and race. On 4 April 1996 the National Security Court sentenced him, in his capacity as editor, to a fine of 4,250,000 Turkish liras. The court also banned publication of the daily newspaper for one month. Mr Erol appealed to the Court of Cassation, which dismissed his appeal on 21   October 1996.   The applicant complained, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of an infringement of his right to freedom of expression. Relying also on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complained of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the National Security Court.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 3,811.23 euros (EUR) is to be paid to the applicant for the damage sustained and for costs and expenses. Turkey has, moreover, made the following declaration:   “The Court’s rulings against Turkey in cases concerning prosecutions under Article 312 of the Criminal Code or the statutory provisions on the prevention of terrorism clearly show that Turkish law and practice must as a matter of urgency be brought into line with the requirements set forth in Article 10 of the Convention. The interference complained of in the present case is a further example of this. The Government therefore undertake to make all the necessary changes to their domestic law and practice in this area, as these have already been set out in the National Programme of 24   March 2001.   The Government also refer to the individual measures set out in the Interim Resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 23 July 2001 (Res DH (2001) 106), which they shall apply in circumstances such as those characterising the present case.” (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Koskinas v. Greece (no. 47760/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Dimitrios Koskinas is a Greek national. He was born in 1953 and lives in Athens. He had worked as a steward for the airline company, Olympic Airways, since 1976. He was dismissed on 4 April 1996 on suspicion of having indecently assaulted two young passengers. The applicant brought an action in the Athens Court of First Instance, which set aside his dismissal and ordered him to be re-instated in his previous post. It held that the Dismissals Board had failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision because it had been taken without the applicant’s guilt having been established. However, the Athens Court of Appeal quashed that judgment, holding that, pursuant to the airline company’s Employment Regulations, the Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction to examine the merits of the Dismissals Board’s decision. In a judgment of 20 October 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, ruling that the facts described justified the applicant’s dismissal.   The applicant complained of the refusal of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation to examine the truthfulness of the charges against him justifying his dismissal. He relied to that end on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). He also complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of not having had a remedy in the domestic courts to complain of the unlawfulness of his dismissal.   The Court noted that the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation had reviewed the lawfulness of the decision complained of. However, neither of those courts had first checked that the accusations against Mr Koskinas were true. He had therefore been unable to challenge them. The Court accordingly concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Section 3     Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 In the following nine Turkish cases, the applicants complained about delays in the payment of compensation due to them following the expropriation of their property. They alleged that the compensation they received did not reflect the real increase in inflation during the period between the date the amount was fixed and the date of payment. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property) to the Convention. They also complained of the length of the administrative proceedings, relying on Article 6 § 1 (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time).   In each case the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It awarded each applicant the amounts listed below in euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage together with a total of EUR 300 in each case for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Pecuniary damage (3)     Burhan Bilgin v. Turkey (no. 20132/92) EUR    7,850 (4)     Leyli Bilgin v. Turkey (no. 20133/92) EUR    7,850 (5)     Münir Bilgin v. Turkey (no. 20134/92) EUR    7,850 (6)     Canlı v. Turkey (no. 20136/92) EUR    4,500 (7)     Günal v. Turkey (no. 20142/92) EUR 22,500 (8)     İsmet Şen v. Turkey (no. 20153/92) EUR    4,500 (9)     Mahmut Şen v. Turkey (no. 20154/92) EUR    4,500 (10)     Kemal Şen v. Turkey (no. 20156/92) EUR    4,500 (11)     Mehmet Taşdemir v. Turkey (no. 20158/92) EUR    5,000     (12)     Erdoğan v. Turkey (no. 26337/95)   Friendly settlement Mahmut Erdoğan is a Turkish national. He was born in 1948 and lives in Muğla (Turkey). His son, Baki Erdoğan, died in hospital on 22 August 1993 while in police custody and after going on hunger strike on 14 August 1993. The autopsy established that there were numerous injuries, bruises and abrasions on his body and that his death had been caused by respiratory failure resulting from lung injuries.   On 31 August and 17 September 1993 the applicant and his lawyer lodged a complaint against the police officers in whose custody the deceased had been prior to his death. The Izmir public prosecutor committed the police officers for trial on charges of “assault and ill-treatment”, but found that there was no case to answer on the charge of “extorting confessions under torture” contrary to Article 243 of the Criminal Code.   After an appeal had been lodged at the request of the Ministry of Justice, the defendant police officers were charged with breaching Article 243 of the Criminal Code. In a judgment of 21   April 1998 the Assize Court convicted the police officers of unintentional homicide, sentenced them to five and a half years’ imprisonment and permanently debarred them from the civil service. That judgment was set aside by the Court of Cassation, but the Assize Court decided on 29 June 1999 to maintain the penalties initially imposed. The case was consequently remitted to the Plenary Criminal Court, which definitively quashed the impugned judgment on 28 December 1999. The proceedings now appear to be pending before the Assize Court.   The applicant complained of his son’s death in police custody and relied on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 3 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). He also complained, under Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time), of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against those allegedly responsible for his son’s death.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 100,000 euros (EUR) is to be paid to the applicant for the damage sustained and for costs and expenses. Turkey has, moreover, made the following declaration:   “The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of death resulting from the use of unjustified force and from the failure to protect the lives of detainees as in the circumstances of Mr Baki Erdoğan’s death, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such acts and to remedy such failures. It is accepted that such acts and failures constituted a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and the Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the right to life and the prohibition of ill-treatment – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations as also required by Articles 2 and 13 – are respected in the future. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of deaths and ill-treatment of detainees in circumstances similar to those of the instant application and in more effective investigations being carried out. The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place.” (The judgment is available only in French.)   In the following two Turkish judgments, the applicants were arrested and detained on remand on suspicion of membership of illegal organisations (the PKK and the PRK-Rizgari respectively). In both cases the applicants complained about the length of their detention on remand, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge). In İğdeli v. Turkey the applicants also relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). The figures in brackets represent the length of time for which the applicants were detained on remand. (Both judgments are available only in English.)   (13)     İğdeli v. Turkey (no. 29296/95) (seven days)   Violation Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,830 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   (14)     Filiz and Kalkan v. Turkey (no. 34481/97) (eight days)   Violation Article 5 § 3 The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   (15)     Siegl v. Austria (no. 36075/97)   Friendly settlement Josef Siegl, an Austrian national, lives in Zaussenberg in Lower Austria. In 1983 agricultural land consolidation proceedings, involving the property of the applicant’s mother (now deceased) were instituted by the Lower Austria District Agricultural Authority. In October 1987 the Authority issued the land consolidation scheme, against which the applicant’s mother appealed. In 1995, following the death of his mother, the applicant decided to continue with the proceedings as his mother’s heir. In February 1999, following several decisions and appeals, the Administrative Court upheld a decision granting a higher amount of compensation. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 13,800 is to be paid for damages of which EUR 1,800 is for costs and expenses incurred in the domestic and Convention proceedings. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (16)     Azinas v. Cyprus (no. 56679/00)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Andreas Azinas, a Cypriot national, worked as Governor of the Department of Co-operative Development of the Public Service in Nicosia, from the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 until his dismissal.   On 28 July 1982 the Public Service Commission instituted disciplinary proceedings against him and decided to dismiss him retrospectively on the ground that on 8 April 1981 he was found guilty by the District Court of Nicosia of theft, breach of trust and abuse of authority. He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. The applicant’s appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16 October 1981.   The Public Service Commission held that the applicant had managed the Department’s resources as if it were his private property. The disciplinary sentence of dismissal also resulted in the forfeiture of the applicant’s retirement benefits including his pension, according to section 79(7) of the Public Service Law No.   33/67, as from the date of his conviction by the District Court. He appealed unsuccessfully.   He alleged a violation of Article   6 § 1 (reasonable time) of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), with relation to his dismissal and the consequent forfeiture of his pension rights.   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. The Court further held, unanimously, that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 4   (17)     Berliński v. Poland (nos. 27715/95 and 30209/96)   No violation Article 3     Violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Roman and Słavomir Berliński are brothers. Both are Polish nationals, born in 1971 and 1974 respectively and living in Poland.     On 4 October 1993 the applicants, both body-builders, were at an athletics club at a Lublin university. The club manager urged them to leave, as they did not have permission to be in the club. They refused to leave and the manager called the police. Six uniformed officers arrived.   According to the applicants, the officers were hostile. Słavomir Berliński also claims he was sprayed with tear-gas and struck with a stick. According to the Government, the applicants attacked the policemen who were trying to apprehend them. One of the officers was kicked in the face and another in the crotch.   The applicants were put in a police van where they claim they were kicked and beaten up. Roman Berliński claims he lost consciousness. The Government deny that any ill-treatment occurred in the van.     At the police station the applicants were questioned and later released. Roman Berliński was taken to a hospital where he remained for 11   days.   On 15 March 1994 an investigation was opened into complaints by the applicants that they had been ill-treated by police officers. On 12 December 1994 the investigation was discontinued on the ground of lack of evidence against the police officers. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully.   Further investigations were opened against the applicants in 5 October 1993 on suspicion that they had attacked the police officers, thereby obstructing them in the course of their duties.   On 17 February 1994 the applicants were charged with affray, assault and battery. They were required to undergo psychiatric tests; having refused, Roman Berliński was compulsorily placed in a mental hospital.   On 7 August 1996 Lublin District Court found the applicants guilty under Article 234 of the Criminal Code in that they had resisted and assaulted the police. They received suspended prison sentences of one year and six months and one year respectively.   The applicants alleged, in particular, that they were ill-treated by the police on 4 October 1993, and that their defence rights were violated in that they had no defence counsel for a period of over a year during the preliminary investigation of a criminal case against them. They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3. It also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and awarded each of the applicants EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (18)     H.D. v. Poland (no. 33310/96)     Friendly settlement Mrs H.D., a Polish national, was born in 1952 and lives in Samice, Poland. She has diabetes and is on insulin.   On 19 August 1994 she was arrested by policemen from the Warsaw-East Railway Police Station ( Komisariat Kolejowy Policji ) and then taken to the Warsaw Sobering-up Centre ( Izba Wytrzeźwień ). The facts surrounding her arrest and her stay in the sobering-up centre were in dispute. The applicant claims she was brutally beaten up by the policemen who arrested her and that, at the sobering-up centre, she was tied to a bed and refused insulin injections. She further claims that, when she complained to a doctor at the centre that she had been beaten up, he replied “they should have beaten you even more”.   The next day, after being released from the centre, the applicant consulted a forensic expert who ascertained that she had six blue bruises on her legs ranging from 4 cm x 4.4 cm to 20   cm x 19 cm in size. Later, the Warsaw District Prosecutor conducted an investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, which was discontinued on 13 November 1995. The prosecution authorities considered that her injuries had been caused by “her aggressive behaviour and the policemen's attempts to deal with it”. They also found that the use of physical force against her had been lawful.   The applicant complained under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention that she was beaten by the police officers while she was feeling weak and badly affected by her illness. She further submits that the doctors and the staff of the sobering-up centre treated her in an inhuman and degrading manner, that they completely disregarded the fact that she was suffering from hypoglycaemia, ignored her requests for an insulin injection and her complaints that she had been brutally beaten up by the policemen.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 10,000 Polish zlotys is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: (0)3 88 41 21 54) 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.