CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 mars 2001

.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 } .sDE2D19A5 { width:13.85pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sB220F3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61B87401 { width:15.25pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7EC27A9A { width:9.25pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     192   20.3.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: The Netherlands, Austria, France and Belgium   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgments (only Köksal v. the Netherlands is final [1] ):   Section 1   (1) Köksal v. the Netherlands (application no. 31725/96)               Friendly settlement The applicants, both Turkish nationals, are Salih and Ercan Köksal, the father and son of Hüseyin Köksal. They claimed Hüseyin Köksal died after being tortured by the police. They also alleged that police negligence led to a fatal delay in the administration of medical treatment and that no effective investigation was conducted into Hüseyin Köksal’s death.   They relied, among other things, on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the Netherlands Government have expressed their “deepest regret at the death of Mr Hüseyin Köksal” and agreed to pay the applicants 140,000 Netherlands guilders on an ex gratia basis for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 3   (2)     Telfner v. Austria (no. 33501/96)               Violation Article 6 § 2 Thomas Telfner, an Austrian national convicted of causing injury by negligence after a road traffic accident, complained that, in the criminal proceedings against him, the courts failed to respect the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that both the District Court and the Regional Court dealing with the case relied on a police report that Mr Telfner was the main user of the car and that he had not been home on the night of the accident, but that the victim of the accident had not been able to identify the driver, or even to say whether the driver had been male or female, and that the Regional Court had found that the car in question was also used by the applicant’s sister. In requiring the applicant to provide an explanation, the courts shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence.   The District and Regional Courts also speculated as to whether the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol, which was not supported by any evidence and which was not directly relevant to the offences with which the applicant had been charged. This contributed to the impression that the courts had a preconceived view of the applicant’s guilt.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and awarded the applicant 20,000 Austrian schillings for non-pecuniary damage. (Judgment in English)     (3)     Bouchet v. France (no. 33591/96)                          No violation Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 Gilles Bouchet, a French national accused of raping his former partner but subsequently convicted of a lesser offence, complained of the length of his detention on remand (approximately 17 months and 17 days).   The Court found that the decision to detain him in advance of the Assize Court’s judgment was justified by the seriousness of the crime in question and his state of health. The French courts had taken careful note of psychiatric and medical reports - which described the applicant as, among other things, aggressive and tormented and which noted that he had harassed the victim during the criminal investigations - as well as the vulnerability of the victim.   The European Court of Human Rights held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 5 §§ 3 (right to face trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) and therefore no violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation). (Judgment in French)   Violations Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (4)     Goedhart v. Belgium (no. 34989/97) and (5)     Stroek v. Belgium (nos. 36449/97 and 36467/97) Dirk Goedhart and Laurentius and Cornelius Stroek, all Netherlands nationals living in the Netherlands, refused to appear in person in criminal proceedings against them on charges of importing cannabis. They complained that their lawyers were not allowed to represent them (the applicants’ lawyer in Stroek v. Belgium was allowed to represent them only at first instance) and that they were denied access to the cassation court for not having surrendered to custody before their hearings.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that, in both cases, there had been a violation of Article 6 §§1 and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) concerning the refusal to allow the applicants to be represented by their lawyers and a further violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), concerning their right of access to a court. Mr Goedhart was awarded 30,000 Belgian francs (BEF) for costs and expenses and the other two applicants BEF 50,000. (Judgments in French)   *** 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.