CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 octobre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s79D8A21 { width:66.81pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s259B8E28 { width:55.46pt; display:inline-block } .s24C158EF { width:81.45pt; display:inline-block } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s7E99EE1A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s50353A2B { width:53.45pt; display:inline-block } .s4BBD9D4C { width:116.13pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .s64914E7B { width:15.3pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     485   10.10.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING   Turkey, Portugal and France   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final: [1]   Section 3     (1)     Mehmet Çelebi v. Turkey (application no. 20139/92) (2)     İnce v. Turkey (no. 20143/92)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Mehmet Çelebi and Fehmiye İnce are two Turkish farmers who, at the material time, lived in the villages of Saraycık and Düzce (in Vezirköprü, Samsung) respectively.   In May 1987 the National Water Board ( Devlet Su İşleri ) expropriated their land in order to build the Altınkaya hydro-electric dam in the Kızılırmak Valley. They were paid compensation for the expropriation. The Court of First Instance awarded them additional compensation for the expropriation and default interest at the rate of 30% per annum. After unsuccessfully appealing on points of law against that judgment, the Water Board paid the additional compensation to Mr Çelebi in January and June 1993 and to Mrs İnce between April 1992 and June 1993.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the loss in value of the additional compensation which they obtained only after proceedings lasting several years. They submitted that they had incurred loss as a result of the high monetary depreciation during those periods. They also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of those proceedings.   The Court noted that periods of nearly five years and six years had elapsed between the time at which the applicants had applied to the courts to challenge the amount of compensation for the expropriation, and the time at which they had been paid the additional compensation. It further noted that the additional compensation had been subject to a default interest rate of 30% per annum, whereas at the material time the rate of inflation in Turkey had reached an average of 67% per annum. The delay in payment of the additional compensation, which was attributable to the expropriating authority (the Water Board), had meant that the applicants had sustained further damage in addition to the effects of the expropriation. The Court considered that that delay, coupled with the overall length of the relevant proceedings, had caused the applicants to bear an individual and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It considered that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 and awarded 5,430 euros (EUR) to Mr Çelebi and EUR 7,800 to Mrs İnce for pecuniary damage, EUR 1,100 to Mr Çelebi for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 to both applicants for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Gündoğan v. Turkey (no. 31877/96)   Violation Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5   Halil Gündoğan is a Turkish national who was born in 1960. He is currently in Erzurum Prison.   Suspected of being a member of the illegal organisation TKP/ML-TIKKO (Turkish Communist Party/Marxist-Leninist Turkish Workers’ and Peasants’ Liberation Army), the applicant was arrested by the police and taken into police custody on 17 October 1995. His police custody was extended by the public prosecutor until 26 October 1995, when the applicant was brought before a judge who ordered him to be placed in detention pending trial. On 12 November 1999 he was sentenced to life imprisonment under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the length of his time in police custody. He complained under Article 5 § 4 (right to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of detention shall be decided speedily by a court) that he had no remedy by which to have the lawfulness of the decision ordering him to be detained in police custody reviewed by a judge. Lastly, he complained of a violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to liberty and security) on the ground that under Turkish law an application could not be made to the national courts for compensation for a breach of Article 5 of the Convention.   While the Court accepted that the investigation of terrorist offences presented the authorities with special problems, that did not mean that their actions could be free from supervision by the courts. It noted that the applicant had been detained in police custody for nine days. That length of time did not comply with the requirement of promptness established by the Court’s case-law. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court further noted that the judge who had ordered the applicant to be detained pending trial had not intervened until the end of his time in police custody, nine days after his arrest. It considered that such a lengthy period did not conform with the concept of “speedily”, and unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Lastly, the Court noted that even after the adoption of the present judgment, the violations found could not give rise to any claims for compensation in the national courts.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5 and awarded the applicant 2,750 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Süleyman Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 38578/97)   Friendly settlement On 3 May 1995 Süleyman Kaplan, a Turkish national, was arrested by police officers from the Anti-Terror branch of the Ankara Police Headquarters and accused of being a member of an illegal organisation, the TDKP/GKB ( Türk Devrimci Komünist Partisi/Genç Komünistler Birliği – The Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party/Young Communists’ Union).   The applicant alleged that he was taken to a deserted area by plain-clothes police officers, beaten, threatened with death and then taken unconscious to Ankara Police Station. There, he was further beaten, hung by the arms, squeezed by the testicles, hosed with cold water and given electric shocks. His wife was also tortured and beaten in front of him. He ultimately signed certain documents, which he claims not to have read, to prevent the police raping his wife.   On 15 May 1995 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted in his report the presence of numerous bruises on his shoulders, on the left upper part of his fist, his back and thigh and four ecchymoses on the applicant’s outer gluteal. The doctor also noted that the applicant was suffering from pains in his chest and that he would be unfit for work for five days.   When questioned by the public prosecutor at Ankara State Security Court, the applicant denied the allegations against him and stated that he had signed his statement under duress. He was detained on remand. On 24 June 1996 he was convicted of involvement in an armed gang and sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   On 17 October 1995 the applicant had lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor against the police officers who had allegedly tortured him. On 7 May 1996 the public prosecutor issued a decision based on lack of jurisdiction and transferred the case-file to the office of the Ankara Governor. Following a police investigation, a report found no evidence to substantiate the allegations and concluded that the police officers had performed their duty with diligence and recommended that no prosecution be brought against them.   On 25 December 1998 the Ankara public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara Assize Court against the accused police officers.   These proceedings are apparently still pending.   The applicant complained under Article 3 (prohibition of torture) that he was tortured while in police custody.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 28,000 euros (EUR) is to be paid to the applicant for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. Turkey has, moreover, made the following declaration: “The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of ill-treatment by the authorities of persons detained in custody, as in the case of the applicant, Mr   Süleyman Kaplan, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions. “It is accepted that the recourse to ill-treatment, as in the circumstances of the present case, and the failure to conduct effective investigations constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the prohibition of such actions – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations as required by Articles 3 and 13 – is respected. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in, among other things, more effective investigations into cases of ill-treatment 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 English.)   (5)     Czekalla v. Portugal (no. 38830/97)   Violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)   Robby Czekalla is a German national who was born in 1953 and lives in Sonsbeck (Germany).   On 12 January 1993 he was arrested in Portugal and remanded in custody as part of an anti-drug-trafficking operation. In April 1994 thirty-five defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial. During the trial the applicant dismissed his lawyer and asked to be officially assigned another lawyer. On 21 February 1995 the court assigned Ms T.M. as defence lawyer for the applicant. On 24 July 1995 the Sintra District Court sentenced the applicant to 15 years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking with aggravated circumstances.   On 3 August 1995 the applicant personally appealed against that judgment. His appeal was dismissed, however, on the ground that it had been drafted in German and not Portuguese. On 7 August 1995 Ms T.M., for her part, lodged an appeal against that judgment on the applicant’s behalf. The following month the applicant dismissed Ms T.M. Her appeal against the conviction was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court on 10 July 1996 for failure to state the grounds of appeal adequately. The appeal had not set out a summary of the grounds of appeal and had failed to state how the provisions allegedly breached should have been construed and applied.   Giving judgment on an appeal lodged by the public prosecutor on 11 December 1996, the Supreme Court also found the applicant guilty of conspiracy. It increased his sentence to 18 years’ imprisonment.   Under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons the applicant was transferred to Germany, where he served his sentence until he was released on parole on 14 March 2001.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 6 § 3 (right to legal assistance), the applicant complained of inadequacies in the legal assistance he had received. In his submission, the omissions by his officially assigned defence lawyer had deprived him of the right of access to the Supreme Court.   The Court reiterated that, where legal assistance was provided, the State was not responsible for every shortcoming on the part of an officially assigned lawyer. However, the national authorities were required to intervene where the inadequacy of such a lawyer appeared obvious or had been brought to their attention.   The Court considered that deficiencies or errors in the presentation of the defendant’s case by an officially assigned lawyer did not engage the State’s responsibility. The position was different, however, where a failure to comply with procedural requirements deprived the defendant of a particular remedy and the situation was not rectified by the higher courts. In the present case the applicant had been a foreigner who had no knowledge of the language in which the proceedings were conducted and faced a lengthy prison sentence. Those factors led the Court to conclude that the applicant had not had the benefit of a practical and effective defence in his appeal to the Supreme Court.   The Court considered that the failure of the applicant’s officially assigned lawyer to comply with a procedural requirement in lodging the appeal with the Supreme Court was a manifest shortcoming requiring positive steps to be taken by the national authorities, such as a request to enlarge on or revise the statement of grounds of appeal. The Court further noted that it appeared from the Constitutional Court’s recent case-law that it was no longer possible to declare an appeal inadmissible on the grounds that had been given by the Supreme Court in the present case.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention and awarded the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 11,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   (6)     Theraube v. France (no. 44565/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   The applicants, Brigitte and Laetitia Theraube, are French nationals who were born in 1959 and 1978 respectively and live in Marseilles.   In May 1986 their husband and father died in a road accident after a block of stone fell on a highway in the département of Ain. On 24 June 1988 Brigitte Theraube brought proceedings in the Administrative Court, on her own behalf and on that of her children, against the department responsible for maintaining the highway in question. Their application was dismissed and they unsuccessfully appealed. They then appealed to the Conseil d’Etat , which likewise dismissed their appeal in a judgment of 4 May 1998.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the length of the administrative proceedings (nine years, ten months and ten days). They complained, further, of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat , which, in their submission, had resulted in a breach of the principle of equality of arms and of the right to adversarial proceedings.   The Court noted that the proceedings in the applicants’ case had lasted nearly ten years, a period that did not satisfy the requirement of a reasonable time. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court further reiterated that the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the trial bench of administrative courts did not satisfy the requirements of the right to a fair hearing.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants 10,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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: 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)     Stéphanie Klein (téléphone : 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: 33 (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.