CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 29 avril 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 } .s5D0A9FFE { width:42.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s33892B97 { width:124.13pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5B17C3EF { width:27.23pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s33660E3E { width:133.47pt; display:inline-block } .s49757089 { width:122.79pt; display:inline-block } .s5ED5B900 { width:103.48pt; display:inline-block } .sD43DF3C0 { width:151.49pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     226   29.4.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Estonia, France, Romania, Slovakia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   (1)     Mõtsnik v. Estonia (application no. 50533/99)   No violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Tõnu Mõtsnik, is an Estonian national born in 1959 and living in Tallinn.   On 1 June 1994 the police started criminal proceedings against him on the suspicion that he had committed an offence of “satisfying his sexual desire in an unnatural manner” and on 25   October 1994 he was formally charged with this offence. A charge of attempted rape was added on 22 November 1994. From January 1995 the case was pending before the first-instance court but, apparently due to the heavy workload of the trial court, not dealt with at all until 7 January 1997 when Mr Mõtsnik was committed for trial. As the court considered that he might re-offend, the applicant was taken into custody on 12 February 1998. He was convicted of attempted rape and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment on 26 August 1998. His subsequent appeals were unsuccessful.     The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, about the length of the criminal proceedings against him (four years, six months and eight days) [2] .   Although there were rather significant delays in the proceedings, in particular before the first-instance court, which were not attributable to the applicant or the complexity of the case, the Court considered that the authorities had handled the case promptly after the applicant had been taken into custody. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Barrillot v. France (no. 49533/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Marcel Barrillot is a French national who was born in 1941 and lives in Meyzieu. After being taken into police custody on 9 June 1993 and charged with misappropriation of company assets, forgery and use of forged commercial documents, he was acquitted by the Lyons Criminal Court on 21 January 1999.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him (more than five years and seven months for one level of jurisdiction).   Observing that the investigation had lasted almost three years and that more than two and a half years had elapsed between the date on which the applicant had been committed for trial in the Criminal Court and the date of the first hearing in that court, the Court considered that the proceedings had failed to comply with the “reasonable-time” requirement. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 48,780 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation Article 6 § 1 (3)     Loyen and Others v. France (no. 55926/00)                 Violation Article 13 The applicants, René Loyen, his wife Marie-Louise Loyen, and their daughter Sophie Bruneel, all of French nationality, were born in 1937, 1942 and 1961 respectively. Mrs Loyen lives in Mouvaux and her daughter lives in Tourcoing. Following the first applicant’s death in 1999, his widow and daughter were granted leave by the Court to continue the proceedings.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the length of the administrative proceedings instituted following Mr Loyen’s committal to a psychiatric institution in 1985 and 1987. In addition, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they submitted that they had not had an effective remedy in domestic law enabling them to complain of the length of those proceedings.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings instituted by the applicants had exceeded a “reasonable time” (eight years and three months as regards Mr and Mrs Loyen and 12 years and six months as regards their daughter). It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that respect.   Referring to its case-law, the Court pointed out that at the time when the application had been lodged, there had been no remedy in domestic law enabling the applicants to complain of the length of the proceedings. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the second and third applicants jointly, in their capacity as heirs, EUR 7,000 for the damage sustained and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Rablat v. France (no. 49285/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Adrien Rablat is a French national who was born in 1944 and lives in Marseilles. On 12   March 1991 he was charged with receiving misappropriated company assets and accepting bribes. In a judgment of 29 October 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld his conviction and sentence, consisting of 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended, and a fine for receiving misappropriated company assets and trading of favours. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him (more than seven years and seven months).   Observing that during the investigation, which had lasted almost four years, there had been unjustified periods of inactivity, the Court considered that the proceedings had not been conducted diligently and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 551 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (5)     Ghitescu v. Romania (no. 32915/96) (6)     Popa and Others v. Romania (no. 31172/96) Ghitescu Dan   Sorin   Ghitescu is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest. His grandparents owned a plot of land and house, which were nationalised in 1950. Popa and Others The applicants, Alexandru Popa and his wife Sanda Popa, both of dual Romanian and French nationality, were born in 1929 and 1935 respectively. They lived in Paris and owned a flat in Bucharest, which was confiscated by the State in 1979. Following Mr   Popa’s death in 2001, his heirs were granted leave by the Court to continue the proceedings.   In both these cases, the applicants applied to the domestic courts for an order for restitution of property in Bucharest which the State had nationalised. Their claims were upheld in final court decisions against which there was no right of appeal. However, the Supreme Court of Justice set aside those decisions on an application by the Procurator-General of Romania, holding that nationalisation decrees were not amenable to judicial review.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to recognise that the domestic courts had jurisdiction to settle actions to establish title to property. In addition, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The Court reiterated that the quashing of a final judgment was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. In quashing court decisions which had become final, the Supreme Court of Justice had infringed the applicants’ right to a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise that the courts had jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ actions to establish title to the properties in question was in itself contrary to the right of access to a tribunal. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both those respects.   The Court also found that the applicants’ rights of property had been established by final judgments and had therefore been irrevocable. The judgments of the Supreme Court had had the effect of depriving them of their property. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the fair balance that had to be struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights had been upset and that the applicants had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   In the Ghitescu case, by way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 187 for costs and expenses. In the case of Popa and Others the Court ordered the restitution of the property in issue to the second applicant and to the first applicant’s heirs within three months of the date on which its judgment became final. Failing that, Romania was to pay them 35,000 euros (EUR). The Court also awarded them EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,672 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   (7)     Nezbeda v. Slovakia (no. 56452/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Karol Nezbeda, is a Slovakian national born in 1942 and living in Závadka nad Hronom.   He complained, under Article   6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), about the length of proceedings concerning an insurance claim which had lasted nearly six years for two levels of jurisdiction. He further complained, under Article 13, that he had had no effective remedy.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 47,614 Slovakian korunas is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (8)     Ö.Ö. and S.M. v. Turkey (no. 31865/96)   Friendly settlement The applicants are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962 and 1974 respectively and live in Şanlıurfa.   They were arrested by the police in November 1992 on suspicion of having links with the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The applicants underwent a medical examination on 5   December 1992, the date on which they were placed in pre-trial detention, but no evidence of assault was found. A medical report dated 15 December 1992 found that Ö.Ö. had suffered minor leg injuries and partial paralysis of the left arm, and that S.M. had minor thigh injuries and reduced mobility in both arms. Orders were given for the applicants to be transferred to the neurology department for a detailed examination, but it appears from the case file that the transfer did not take place.   The applicants were prosecuted under the legislation on the prevention of the formation of armed groups capable of committing crimes against the State and the public authorities, and on 19 December 1994 they were sentenced by the National Security Court to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation set aside that judgment, and the evidence on file shows that the criminal proceedings instituted against them are still pending before the domestic courts.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicants submitted that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement under which the applicants are to receive EUR 30,000 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. The Government have also made the following declaration:   “The Government regret the occurrence, as in the present case, of individual cases of ill-treatment by the authorities of persons detained notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions. It is accepted that the recourse to inhuman treatment of detainees constitutes 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 acts and the obligation to carry out effective investigations are respected in the future. The Government refer in this connection to the commitments which they undertook in the Declaration agreed on in Application no. 34382/97 and reiterate their resolve to give effect to those commitments. They note that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of ill-treatment in circumstances similar to those of the instant case as well as more effective investigations.   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.)     (9)     Sevgi Erdoğan v. Turkey (no. 28492/95)   Struck out The applicant, Sevgi Erdoğan, was a Turkish national born in 1956. She died on 14 July 2001 after going on hunger strike; by that time she had been released from prison on health grounds.   The applicant was arrested by the security forces on 26 October 1994. The following day, a medical examination carried out at Mersin Hospital revealed that she had fractured her right pelvis. She left the hospital and was taken into custody at Mersin police headquarters. She submitted that during her time in police custody she had been given electric shocks and had been beaten, in particular with truncheons; the police officers had forced her to sit down despite her fracture and had broken a bone in her foot. She was taken to hospital again and was found to have suffered a fracture of the left heel bone. The Government denied those allegations and maintained that the applicant had sustained serious injuries in jumping from the second floor while the security forces were conducting an operation against the illegal organisation Dev-Sol (Revolutionary Left).   The applicant lodged a complaint against the police officers who had arrested her and supervised her during her time in custody, but the proceedings against them were discontinued. She herself was convicted by the National Security Court on 4 November 1996 and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for membership of an armed organisation or group formed for the purpose of committing offences.   The applicant complained of the violence to which she had been subjected while in police custody. She also complained of the conditions in which she had been kept in hospital, submitting that she had been handcuffed and blindfolded during her time there.   In a letter of 29 August 2001 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court of her death and of his intention to continue the proceedings before the Court in his capacity as the deceased’s legal representative. The Court reiterated that in the event of an applicant’s death, it took into account statements by heirs or close relatives of the deceased expressing the wish to pursue the application. As the applicant’s lawyer was neither one of her relatives nor one of her statutory heirs, the Court considered that he was not in a position to claim a legitimate interest, whether pecuniary or personal, in continuing the proceedings on her behalf.   Seeing that it had proved impossible to contact any of the applicant’s relatives or statutory heirs, and observing that it had already had occasion to rule on the issue raised by the applicant in its examination of other applications, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, it decided unanimously to strike the case out, but reserved the power to restore it to the list if new circumstances arose justifying such a measure. (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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (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. [2] The Court can only consider the period of two years, seven months and twenty-three days, which elapsed after 16 April 1996, the date the Convention entered into force in Estonia although it will take into account the stage reached in the proceedings on that date.