CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 mai 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sAAA0B4EC { width:314.23pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s8ABE6CD5 { width:98.77pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sD69DB940 { width:32.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     249   9.5.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Croatia, Greece and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]     No violation Article 6 § 1 (1)     Šoć v. Croatia (application no.   47863/99)   Violation Article 13 The applicant, Draško Šoć, is a Croatian national, born in 1954 and living in Zagreb. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged that the domestic courts had not decided his five sets of civil cases within a reasonable time and complained further, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that he had not had an effective remedy in respect of the excessive length of those proceedings. The Government submitted that a remedy had been available under the Court Constitutional Act of 2002.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that, as Mr Šoć had not exhausted domestic remedies, it had been unable to examine the merits of the case in respect of the three sets of proceedings that were still pending before the domestic courts. Regarding the other two sets of proceedings, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6 § 1 because, despite certain periods of inactivity attributable to the authorities, the applicant’s behaviour had caused much of the delay. There had, however, been a violation of Article 13 because the Government had not established that the relevant statute afforded a remedy where the proceedings in question had come to an end. The finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage and the Court awarded the applicant 500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.) Violation Article 6 § 1 (2)     Papageorgiou v. Greece (no.   59506/00)   Violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) Georgios Papageorgiou is a Greek national who was born in 1955 and lives at Aghios Stephanos (Attica). He was prosecuted on 2 June 1990 following a complaint to the public prosecutor’s office by his employer, the Commercial Bank of Greece, alleging that he and other employees had debited the account of Greek Railways (“ OSE ”) using seven cheques from a cheque-book that had been issued but never delivered to Greek Railways. The bank claimed that the loss came to more than 20,000,000 drachmas (EUR   58,700).   The applicant was convicted of fraud by the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal, which found that he had worked on the computer that had been used to commit the offence and had signed the cheques. During the proceedings the applicant made several unsuccessful requests for the production of certain evidence, including pages from the electronic calendar on the computer and the originals of the cheques. After the conviction was quashed following an appeal to the Court of Cassation, the case was remitted to the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal, which found the applicant guilty of deception and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. That decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 30 November 1999.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of the proceedings.   Noting that the case had lasted 9 years, 5 months and 28 days and that there had been periods of inaction and delays attributable to the judicial authorities, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings.   The Court also noted that the case concerned a refusal to order production of the originals of documents that had served as a basis for a criminal conviction. At no stage during the proceedings had the trial courts examined the computer’s electronic records or the originals of the cheques. They had not even checked whether the copies that had been produced conformed to the originals. Production of the cheques was vital to the applicant’s case and might have enabled him to demonstrate that the accusation was unfounded. Despite his repeated requests, essential items of evidence had not been produced or adequately examined at the trial. Accordingly, the Court considered that the proceedings taken as a whole had not met the requisite standards of fairness. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and awarded the applicant EUR   20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   15,848 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation Article 2 (inadequate investigation) and Article 13 (3)     Tepe v. Turkey (no.   27244/95) No violation Articles 2 (right to life), 3, 5, 10, 14 and 18 The applicant, İsak Tepe, is a Turkish national, born in 1943 and now living in Istanbul. At the material time he was provincial chairman of the Democracy Party in Biltis (south-east Turkey). He alleged that in July 1993 his son, Ferhat Tepe, born in 1974, who had been a reporter for the Özgür Gündem newspaper in Bitlis, had been tortured and killed after being abducted by undercover agents of the State or by persons acting under their instructions and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his death. The Government denied this, maintaining that Ferhat Tepe had been murdered by the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).   As the parties did not agree on the facts surrounding Ferhat Tepe’s death, three delegates from the Court took evidence from 24 witnesses at hearings held in Ankara between 9 and 14   October 2000.   The applicant raised complaints under Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 5 (right to security of person), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination), 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) and 34 (right of individual petition) of the Convention.   After examining the parties’ submissions and the evidence, the Court considered that the circumstances in which Ferhat Tepe had died and the fact that he had been working for a pro-Kurdish newspaper militated in favour of his father’s allegations. However, the only other evidence which had supported those allegations had been a hearsay statement by the applicant’s then lawyer. The Court could not conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that Ferhat Tepe had been abducted and killed by any State agent or person acting on their behalf and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of his right to life.   With regard to the procedural aspect of Article 2, however, the Court noted that there had been striking omissions in the conduct of the investigation into Ferhat Tepe’s disappearance and death. There had been no proper co-ordination between the police authorities and the various prosecutors, who, moreover, had failed to broaden the investigation or take steps on their own initiative to identify possible witnesses. The Court also found it regrettable that no full forensic autopsy had been carried out by a qualified forensic expert. Accordingly, it considered that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the national authorities’ failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant’s son.   The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 13 because the applicant had had an arguable claim under Article 2 that had not been adequately investigated. No violation was found of any of the other provisions relied on by the applicant, but the Court held that the Government had failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention to provide all necessary facilities to the Court in its task of establishing the facts. Accordingly, it was not necessary to examine separately whether there had been a violation of Article 34 of the Convention.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 14,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 14,500 for costs and expenses less EUR 2,922.97 in legal aid granted by the Council of Europe. (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)   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. [Note1]   Press release for grouped judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: [case name +] [day +] month[s] + year + language [+ case names] (e.g. January 2003E (Bloggs, Durand + Dupont) or 12-14 February 2003E (Finland + France) or Reina 31012003E ), (2)   Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4) Subject: JCH or JGC .