CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 janvier 2003

.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 } .s85F5C4EC { width:81.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6D70EBE { width:150.87pt; 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD8444C16 { width:330.23pt; display:inline-block } .s352293CF { width:60.11pt; display:inline-block } .s672BE378 { width:310.89pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s1B419512 { width:34.11pt; display:inline-block } .sE4FC1787 { width:135.47pt; 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 } .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     007   9.1.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Malta and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final: [1]   Section 1   (1)     Tamer v. Turkey (application no. 28002/95)   Friendly settlement Tuna Tamer, a Turkish national, was born in 1945 and lives in Istanbul.   On 23 February 1982 Tekirdağ Assize Court convicted the applicant for abuse of office for assisting and protecting smugglers and sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and to a heavy fine. The applicant appealed. On 30   June 1982 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.   Tekirdağ Assize Court subsequently joined the applicant’s case with another case of collective smuggling initiated against 13 co-accused and, on 12 December 1990, convicted the applicant for collective smuggling and sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment.   The applicant’s appeals and requests that his case be re-opened were rejected.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the length and fairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him and, under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 10,000 euros (EUR) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   The applicants in the following eight Italian cases 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) except the case Cecchi v. Italy which only relied on Article 6 § 1 .   In six of the cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The cases Di Tullio v. Italy and Cecchi v. Italy were struck out following friendly settlements. The Court awarded the applicants the following amounts, in euros, for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses . (All judgments are available only in English except C.T. v. Italy, Tolomei v. Italy and Carloni and Bruni v. Italy , which are available only in French.)         Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1   Pecuniary damage non-pecuniary damage costs and expenses (2)     E.P. v. Italy (no. 34658/97)   EUR 6,000   (3)     Marini v. Italy (no. 35088/97) EUR 4,000 to each applicant EUR 3,000 to each applicant EUR 300 to each applicant (4)     C.T. v. Italy (no. 35428/97) EUR 750 EUR 8,000 EUR 1,500 (5)     Tolomei v. Italy (no. 35637/97) EUR 5,000 EUR 4,000 EUR 2,000 (6)     Carloni and Bruni v. Italy (no. 35777/97) EUR 6,400 to each applicant EUR 10,000 to each applicant   (7)     Ciccariello v. Italy (no. 34412/97) EUR 13,000 EUR 6,000 EUR 2,000       Friendly settlements (8)     Di Tullio v. Italy (no. 34435/97) EUR 4,500 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses (9)     Cecchi v. Italy (no. 37888/97) EUR 12,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses   (10)     Shishkov v. Bulgaria (no. 38822/97)   Violation Article 5 §§ 3 and 4     No violation Article 5 § 1 Krassimir Liubomirov Shishkov, a Bulgarian national, was born in 1970 and lives in Rakovski (Bulgaria).   On 22 August 1997 he was arrested on suspicion of having stolen gold jewellery and money worth 20,110,448 Bulgarian levs. On 23 August 1997 he was brought before an assistant investigator who charged him and decided that he should be remanded in custody. The detention order, which was made on the basis that the applicant was charged with a serious offence, stated that there existed a danger of the applicant’s absconding or committing offences, without providing reasons. It was either authorised in advance or approved on the same day by a prosecutor.   The applicant admitted the theft and most of the valuables were recovered by the police.   The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against his detention on two occasions and was finally released on bail in April 1998.   He alleged, among other things, that when arrested he was not brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, that he was deprived of his liberty without justification and for an unreasonably lengthy period, and that his right to bring judicial proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his detention was violated in several respects. He relied on various aspects of Article 5 (right to liberty and security)   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in that upon his arrest the applicant was not brought before a judge or other officer exercising judicial power and in respect of the length and lack of justification for his detention pending trial. It further held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 in that the applicant’s lawyer was refused access to the case file and in respect of the rejection of the applicant’s first appeal against detention.   Finally the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 and Article 5 § 4 in respect of the examination of the applicant’s second appeal against detention. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (11)     Ioannis Papadopoulos v. Greece (no. 52848/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Ioannis Papadopoulos, a Greek national, was born in 1947 and lives in Athens.   On 16 July 1998 he was arrested in flagrante delicto for entering without prior authorisation   the operation block of the hospital where he was working. He was placed in detention for one day.   On 17 July 1998 he was found guilty and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. He appealed against the decision.   So far, the proceedings have lasted more than four years and four months.   The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (12)     Kadem v. Malta (no. 55263/00)   Violation Article 5 § 4 M’hmed Kadem was born in 1952 and lives in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.   On 25 October 1998 he was arrested on the strength of a provisional arrest warrant issued by a duty magistrate in connection with a request for his extradition made by the Kingdom of Morocco. The charge related to the applicant’s involvement in international drug trafficking in cannabis and the information provided referred, among other things , to the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (the Vienna Convention).   On 26 October 1998, under section 15(1) of the Extradition Act, the applicant was brought before the Magistrates’ Court acting as a court of criminal inquiry in connection with extradition proceedings. The presiding magistrate was different from the one who issued the provisional arrest warrant. The applicant did not challenge the lawfulness of his arrest.   On 28 October 1998 the applicant filed a judicial act with the First Hall of the Civil Court alleging that the provisional arrest warrant was unlawful because there were no bilateral extradition arrangements between Malta and Morocco and the Vienna Convention had not been incorporated into domestic law.   On 30 October 1998 the Prime Minister, as the minister responsible for justice matters, rejected the applicant’s claim as frivolous and vexatious. He stressed that both Malta and Morocco were parties to the Vienna Convention even though the Convention had not been incorporated into domestic law.   On 3 November 1998, the applicant’s lawyer pleaded that the Magistrates’ Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case for extradition, that the provisional arrest warrant was therefore unlawful and that the applicant should be released. On 13 November 1998 the applicant again pleaded that the Maltese courts lacked jurisdiction. On 20 November 1998 the Magistrates’ Court rejected the plea of lack of jurisdiction and declared that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   On 23 December 1998, while the extradition proceedings were still pending, the applicant filed an application with the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. He alleged that his case gave rise to violations of Article 5 §§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   On 15 January 1999 the applicant was discharged on the grounds that there was no evidence to justify his extradition to Morocco and ordered to return to the Netherlands within hours.   On 27 January 1999 the applicant’s lawyer requested that his client be allowed to return to Malta for the hearing of the case pending before the First Hall of the Civil Court. Permission was never granted and, given the absence of the parties at the hearing, the First Hall adjourned the case.   On 1 September 1999 the applicant’s action was declared deserted and his case, struck off the list.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that there were no means available to him under Maltese law to challenge speedily his arrest and detention with a view to extradition.   Concerning the applicant’s request for release, the Court noted that the Magistrates’ Court gave its judgment 17 days after its introduction. The Court found that the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention had not been decided “speedily” by the Magistrates’ Court as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Furthermore it had not been shown that the applicant had at his disposal under domestic law a remedy for challenging the lawfulness of his detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for 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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 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.