CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC1FBF1D6 { width:50.08pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s949E9E2C { width:144.14pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEB2C922 { width:98.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1DF1DF63 { width:46.12pt; display:inline-block } .s5BBFA238 { width:138.14pt; display:inline-block } .sF3606AD7 { width:174.17pt; display:inline-block } .sE9B6CCFB { width:132.8pt; display:inline-block } .sB6A12203 { width:335.57pt; display:inline-block } .s8937497D { width:326.9pt; 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 } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .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     341   27.6.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Turkey, France, Poland, Greece and Croatia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17   Chamber judgments of which only the friendly settlements are final: [1]   Section 2   (1)     Sıddık Yaşa v. Turkey (application no. 22281/93)     Friendly settlement Sıddık Yaşa, a Turkish national, lived in Tepecik with his wife Yezal Yaşa and his son Veysi Yaşa.   Both the latter died in controversial circumstances. Following an attack carried out by an armed gang of the PKK on 17 December 1992 in which a village guard working for the State was executed, the applicant claims that soldiers accompanied by village guards invaded the village of Tepecik on 19 December 1992 and threw a grenade into his house killing his wife and son. He alleges that on 22 December several village guards killed and wounded villagers, set fire to houses and decimated the livestock. The inhabitants of Tepecik were finally forced to leave their village without being able to bury their relatives. The applicant claims that he contacted the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office with a view to reporting the events but that he was given to understand that he should forget the matter. He says that he did not dare apply to a higher legal authority for fear of reprisals.   The Government maintain that violent armed clashes had taken place in Tepecik until 20   December 1992, pitting the armed forces against PKK terrorists and costing eight terrorists and a village guard their lives. Seven villagers suspected of taking part in the PKK’s initial attack were arrested in possession of weapons and brought before the courts. The Government dispute the applicant’s allegation that the public prosecutor’s office attempted to dissuade him from reporting the matter.   A criminal investigation appears to have been commenced concerning the events in question, but the Court does not have any information about the outcome.   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights), the applicant complained of the death of his wife and son and of the lack of an effective investigation into their deaths. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the destruction of his house by members of the armed forces.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 89,000 pounds sterling (142,695.79 euros (EUR)) is to be paid for damage and costs and expenses.   The Turkish Government also made the following statement. “The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of death resulting from the unjustified and disproportionate use of force, as in the case of Mrs Yezal Yaşa and her son Veysi Yaşa, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions.   It is accepted that the occurrence of deaths in the present case and the inadequate investigations that followed constituted a violation of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate [instructions] and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the right to life – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations as required by these Articles – is respected. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted, among other things, more effective investigations into cases of death in circumstances similar to those of the instant application.   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.)   (2)     L.   R. v. France (no. 33395/96)   Violation Article 5 § 4 The applicant is a French national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Massy. On 4 December 1995, on attending the police station of the 13 th arrondissement in Paris to lodge a complaint against a person or persons unknown, the police decided to transfer her to the psychiatric infirmary attached to the Paris police headquarters, where a doctor diagnosed her as mentally ill. By a prefectoral decision of 5 December 1995, she was committed to a psychiatric institution. On 17 January 1996 she applied to the public prosecutor for a hearing on the subject of her confinement and on 22 January 1996 also applied to the president of the tribunal de grande instance for immediate release. On 22 February 1996 the president of the tribunal de grande instance sent the senior doctor of the hospital a letter requesting him to inform the applicant that the court would rule on her application as a matter of urgency on 15   March. The president was then informed that the applicant had been on trial release since 15   February. The case was adjourned on several occasions due to the applicant’s absence. The president of the tribunal de grande instance finally struck the case out on 5 July 1996 after being informed that the order committing the applicant had been lifted on 3   May 1996.   Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of the length of time it had taken for her request for immediate release to be examined.   Noting that there had been an interval of 24 days between the applicant’s request for release and her release on trial, the Court found that there had been a breach of the Article 5 § 4 requirement for detention to be decided “speedily”.   Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Eryk Kawka v. Poland (no. 33885/96)     Violation Article 5 § 3 On 13 January 1996 the applicant – Eryk Kawka, a Polish national – was charged with robbery and detained pending trial. On 17 June 1996 Gliwice District Court convicted him of the offence and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment and three years’ deprivation of his civic rights.   The applicant complained, among other things, under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) that he had not been brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power after his arrest.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicant 8,900 Polish zlotys for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Former Section 2   (4)     Pialopoulos and Alexiou v. Greece (no. 37095/97)      Just satisfaction In its principal judgment in the case (15 February 2001) the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time). The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   The application concerned a series of building prohibitions and attempted expropriations (allegedly to protect the environment) as a result of which the applicants had been unable to use their property since 1987 and the alleged failure of the authorities to comply with a court decision revoking one of the expropriation orders.   The applicants, all Greek nationals, complained that their land had been expropriated contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They submitted that it had not been established that the expropriation was in the public interest and that no proper balance had been struck between the act of interference and the legitimate aim pursued. Moreover, domestic law had been violated since the authorities had refused to comply with court judgments or to pay them compensation as they were required to do under the Greek Constitution. The applicants also complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of their inability to enforce the court decisions in their favour.   The Court decided, unanimously, to award the applicants 3,850,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 40,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 30,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 2   (5)     D. M. v. France (no. 41376/98)   Violation Article 5 § 4 The applicant is a French national, who was born in 1973. On 31 May 1997, at his parents’ request, he was committed to the Lille University Regional Hospital Centre. In a letter of 4   June 1997 he requested the president of the tribunal de grande instance to order his immediate release. Although the hospital order was discharged on 10 September 1997 at the request of a third party, the tribunal de grande instance sought psychiatric reports on 17   September 1997. The psychiatrist wrote to the applicant twice at his parents’ address. The applicant had provided a third party’s address as his address for service and this new address appeared on his initial application. The psychiatrist examined the applicant on 17   February 1998 at the clinic where he had been admitted as a voluntary patient. In an order of 30   June 1998 the Lille tribunal de grande instance noted that the hospital order had been discharged and declared the application devoid of purpose.   The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) of the length of time it had taken for his application for immediate release to be examined.   The Court noted that the president of the tribunal de grande instance had struck the case out of the list a year and twenty days after receiving the applicant’s application for immediate release. It further noted that the president had only sought a psychiatric report three months after the application had been lodged by which time the hospital order had, in any event, been discharged. It considered that that period did not comply with the requirement under Article 5 § 4 for detention to be decided “speedily”.   Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (6)     Denoncin v. France (no. 43689/98)     Struck out Jacques Denoncin, a French national who was born in 1954, was charged with unintentional homicide committed with the use or threatened use of a firearm. He was placed in pre-trial detention on 7 September 1995 after a body had been found on a public highway apparently the victim of a shooting. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended twice by order of the investigating judge, who notified the parties on 23 July 1997 that the investigation stage had been completed. Mr Denoncin was committed by the Indictment Division of the Douai Court of Appeal to the Northern Assize Court to stand trial for murder. In a judgment of 9   October 1998 the Assize Court reclassified the offence as fatal wounding with a firearm and sentenced the applicant to nine years’ imprisonment. He was released on 2 June 2001.   While in pre-trial detention Mr Denoncin made nine bail applications, all of which were dismissed, the last application being dismissed by a judgment of 5 August 1998, against which he appealed on points of law. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on the ground that it had become devoid of purpose because in the meantime the applicant had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.   The Court noted that it had received no news of the applicant since 8 August 2000 and that he had failed to advise it of his new address after his release. All possible steps had been taken to locate him but to no avail. The Court concluded that the applicant did not wish to pursue his application and considered that there were no special circumstances concerning compliance with rights guaranteed by the Convention that warranted pursuing the examination of his application.   Consequently, the Court decided unanimously to strike the application out of the list. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (7)     Delić v. Croatia (no. 48771/99)     Violation Article 6 § 1     Violation Article 13 During 1992 the applicant – Petar Delić, a Croatian national – lent money to a number of companies in Zagreb for periods ranging from 3 to 12 months at a rate of interest ranging from 5% to 31% (so-called financial engineering). As the companies failed to repay the loans, the applicant issued ten actions seeking repayment.   He alleged, in particular, that the “reasonable-time” requirement had been contravened in several of the actions and that he had had no remedy at his disposal in respect thereof. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of both Article 6 § 1 and Article   13 in respect of nine of the actions and no violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the remainder. It awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 180 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 3         Friendly settlements In the following ten Turkish cases the applicants complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), of delays in the payment of extra compensation which was awarded them for an expropriation order. In the cases of Karabıyık and others and Atalağ the applicants also alleged a breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and in the Birsel and others case the applicants further complained of a breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts, in American dollars (USD), are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (8)     Özdiler and Bakan v. Turkey (no. 33322/96) (approximately 4 years) USD 35,000 (9)     Özdiler v. Turkey (no. 33419/96) (four years and seven months) USD 5,000 (10)     Karabıyık and others v. Turkey (no. 35050/97) (more than four years) USD 153,750 (11)     Özkan and others v. Turkey (no. 35079/97) (approximately four years) USD 425,000 (12)     Ünlü v. Turkey (no. 35866/97) (four years and six months) USD 25,000 (13)     Bayram and others v. Turkey (no. 35867/97) (approximately four years) USD 70,000 (14)     Bekmezci and others v. Turkey (no. 37087/97) (approximately four years) USD 598,500 (15)     Birsel and others v. Turkey (no. 37414/97) (11 months) USD 1,100,000 (16)     Bayram v. Turkey (no. 38915/97) (approximately 10 months) USD 37,500 (17)     Atalağ v. Turkey (no. 38916/97) (three years and two months) USD 210,000   ***   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 80 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.