CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 juin 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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sDAB17562 { width:82.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA87CC3D6 { width:65.48pt; display:inline-block } .s928910E5 { width:150.15pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s8FA386DE { width:104.11pt; display:inline-block } .sB506F85D { width:133.46pt; display:inline-block } .sD9EF288D { width:138.13pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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     345   24.6.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom   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]   Violation Article 6 § 1 (1)     Bouilly v. France (application no. 57115/00)   Violation Article 13   Length of administrative proceedings   The applicant, Elisabeth Bouilly, is a French national who was born in 1948 and lives in Saint-Jean de Braye. She enrolled on a training course organised by the Orléans Regional Hospital, but was unable to sit the end of course examination as the organisers were behind schedule.   She sent a letter before action on 27 February 1995 to the Regional Social-Services Department ( DRASS ), which was responsible for organising the examination, seeking compensation for the loss she had sustained as a result of the mismanagement of the course. Having received no reply, she brought an action in the administrative court which was dismissed on 4 January 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, she complained of the length of the proceedings. She further submitted that she did not have a remedy in French law whereby she could seek relief for the infringement of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time.   The Court found that the proceedings, which had begun with the letter before action to the Regional Social-Services Department and ended with the administrative court’s judgment, had lasted more than 4 years and 10 months involving a pre-judicial phase and one level of jurisdiction. It found that the case had not been heard within a reasonable time and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   As to the complaint of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the Court noted that it had found a violation in a similar case. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court awarded Ms Bouilly 3,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Allard v. Sweden (no. 35179/97)   Violation Article 1 Protocol No. 1   Demolition of property erected on jointly-owned land   The applicant, Inga Allard, a Swedish national, was born in 1947 and lives in Spånga (Sweden). She had a number of disagreements with members of her family over land they owned jointly in the archipelago of Stockholm. This resulted in the demolition in June 1996 of a house belonging to the applicant which had been built in 1988 without the consent of the other joint owners. In November 1996 the Real Estate Court decided that the property should be divided into plots. The applicant was assigned the plot on which the house had stood. She was subsequently granted permission to rebuild the house.   Ms Allard complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention ), that the demolition of the house had violated her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions and under Article 8 that it had violated her right to respect for her home.   In considering whether a fair balance had been struck between the general interest (as represented by the public interest in maintaining a workable system of joint ownership) and the applicant’s individual interest, the Court found that the interest of the other joint owners could not be considered to be particularly great since the house was used exclusively by the applicant and immediate family and could not be seen from the plots used by the other joint owners. Although the applicant’s difficulties had largely stemmed from a family conflict to which she appeared to have contributed, the measures taken had failed to strike a fair balance and she had therefore had to bear an individual and excessive burden.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   100,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   25,000 for costs and expenses. It considered that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. It held, further, that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 8. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Barut v. Turkey (no. 29863/96)   Friendly settlement   Length of detention in police custody   Mikail Barut is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul.   He was arrested on suspicion of having links with an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), and taken into police custody on 16 August 1995. He was released on 21   August 1995. On 28 August 1995 the public prosecutor ruled that he had no case to answer, as there was insufficient evidence against him.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, Mr Barut complained of the length of his detention in police custody and that he did not have a remedy in Turkish law to contest its lawfulness.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 2,286.74 is to be paid for any damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   4)     Dertli and Others v. Turkey (n o 45672/99 5)     Mustafa Yüksel v.Turkey (n o 42430/98) 6 )     Özgür Işık v. Turkey (n o 44057/98) 7)     Halit Yalçin v. Turkey (n o 27696/95)   Independence and impartiality of National Security Courts   In the above four cases the applicants complained that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the fact that one of the judges of the National Security Court was a military judge. They relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. In the case of Dertli and Others the applicants also alleged a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken together with Article 6, asserting that Turkish legislation permitted discrimination against persons held in police custody in connection with offences triable in the national security courts. In the cases of Halit Yalçın and Özgür   Işık , the applicants complained that the procedure in the National Security Court had been unfair.   Violation Article 6 § 1 No violation Article 14 taken together with Article 6 Dertli and Others v. Turkey (no. 45672/99) The applicants, Emrah Dertli, Mahir Karadayı and Hasan Atar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1976, 1978 and 1977 respectively.   All three were charged with membership of an illegal armed organisation, the TDP (Revolutionary Party of Turkey). They were arrested in June and September 1996 and prosecuted inter alia under Article 168 of the Criminal Code which makes it an offence to form an armed gang with a view to committing offences against the State. They were convicted on 9   September 1997 by the Izmir National Security Court. Mr Dertli was sentenced to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Mr Karadayı and Mr Atar were sentenced to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.   Mustafa Yüksel v. Turkey (no. 42430/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Mustafa Yüksel is a Turkish national who was born in 1977.   He was arrested in August 1995 on suspicion of being a member of an illegal armed organisation, the DHKP/C (Revolutionary Party/Front for the Liberation of the People), and taken into police custody. On 25 March 1997 the Izmir National Security Court found him guilty of a bomb attack on a café using a Molotov cocktail and of distributing tracts. It sentenced him to 12 years, 6 months and 27 days’ imprisonment.   Özgür   Işık v. Turkey (no. 44057/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Özgür   Işık is a Turkish national who was born in 1968.   He was prosecuted on a charge of belonging to an illegal organisation, the DHKP/C (Revolutionary Party/Front for the Liberation of the People). On 19 November 1996 the Istanbul National Security Court found him guilty of using false identity papers to take delivery of and transport arms on behalf of that organisation. It sentenced him to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.   Halit Yalçın v. Turkey (no. 27696/95)   Friendly settlement Halit Yalçın is a Turkish journalist who was born in 1966. When he lodged his application he was detained in Bursa Prison.   He was arrested in August 1992 on suspicion of having links with an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), and taken into police custody. He was prosecuted under Article 168 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to form an armed gang with a view to committing offences against the State. On 19 January 1994 the Diyarbakır National Security Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 6,098 is to be paid for any damage and for costs and expenses.   ___________________   The Court reiterated that certain aspects of the status of military judges made their independence and impartiality questionable; they were servicemen who still belonged to the army, which in turn took its orders from the executive. In the Court’s opinion, a civilian accused of terrorist offences who had to stand trial before a national security court whose members included a military judge had legitimate reason for concern about its independence and impartiality.   The fact that the Turkish legislation on the composition of national security courts had been amended so as to be in line with the Convention requirements did not mean that the issue no longer held any legal interest for the applicants. The Court therefore ruled that the national security courts in which the applicants had been tried were not independent and impartial tribunals. Consequently, there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 in each of the cases on that point.   In the light of that finding, the Court held that there was no need to examine Mr Özgür   Işık’s complaint of unfairness. With regard to the allegation by the applicants in the case of Dertli and Others of a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 6, the Court found that in the light of its case-law and the material before it there was no evidence of discrimination contrary to the Convention. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of the Convention on this point.   The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants’ non-pecuniary damage. It awarded them EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses in each case, less EUR 630 which the applicants in the cases of Dertli and Others and Halit Yalçın had received by way of legal aid. (These judgments are available only in French.)   (8)     Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 39482/98) Violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(b)   Non-disclosure of evidence by the prosecution at trial   The applicant, James Dowsett, a British national, was born in 1946 and is currently detained at H.M. Prison Kingston, Portsmouth (Hampshire). On 22 March 1989 he was convicted of the murder of his business partner, Mr Nugent, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution had accused him and two others of hiring two hit men to kill Mr Nugent because he knew too much about the applicant’s involvement in mortgage fraud. In his defence, Mr   Dowsett had argued that he had hired the men to break one of Mr Nugent’s limbs in order to put him out of action for a few weeks so that Mr Dowsett could transfer him to another branch of the firm, and that he had had no motive for killing him since Mr Nugent himself had been involved in the frauds being perpetrated through the business. He alleged that, after killing Mr Nugent, the hit men had blackmailed him into paying them more money.   Following his conviction, Mr Dowsett complained to the Police Complaints Authority that the police had refused to disclose evidence that he believed would have supported his defence. Non-disclosure of evidence at trial was one of the grounds of his appeal, which was heard on 28 and 29 March 1994 in the Court of Appeal. Some of the material was disclosed prior to the hearing but other material was withheld, partly on the ground that it would not be in the public interest to disclose it. Mr Dowsett’s appeal was dismissed.   He alleged, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence), that he had been deprived of a fair trial because the prosecution had failed to disclose all the material evidence in their possession.   The Court observed that a procedure, such as in this case, whereby the prosecution itself – without notifying the trial judge – assessed the importance to the defence of concealed information and weighed that against the public interest in keeping the information secret, could not comply with the requirements of a fair trial. Even though Mr Dowsett could himself have requested the Court of Appeal to review the undisclosed material, that review procedure was not sufficient to remedy the unfairness caused at the trial by the absence of any scrutiny of the undisclosed information. The Court emphasised the importance of material relevant to the defence being placed before the trial judge for a ruling on whether or not it should be disclosed.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 combined with Article 6 § 3 (b) and considered that the finding of a violation amounted to sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicant EUR   15,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (9)     Stretch v. the United Kingdom (no. 44277/98) Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Inability to renew building lease after expiry of original lease containing option to renew   The applicant, Michael Stretch, a British national, was born in 1934 and lived in Wareham (Dorset). He died on 8 January 2003. His son, Jonathan Stretch, who is also the executor of his estate, continued the application.   In November 1969 the applicant was granted a 22-year building lease of industrial land by Dorchester Borough Council. The lease required him to erect up to six buildings at his own expense for light industrial use and included an option to renew for a further term of 21 years. In 1990 the applicant was negotiating to renew the lease when he was informed that the renewal option could not be exercised because, among other things, Dorchester Borough Council had exceeded its powers in granting him an option to renew the lease. He unsuccessfully applied to the courts to enforce his right.   He complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that he had been wrongfully denied the option of a further term of 21 years under the lease.   The Court observed that Mr Stretch had accepted the lease on the basis that he would be able to extend its term and that neither he nor the council had been aware that they were legally prevented from renewing it. Mr Stretch had then built on the land and sub-let the premises to third parties. He therefore had to be regarded as having had at least a legitimate expectation of exercising the option to renew. That legitimate expectation had been interfered with by the local authority. As to whether a fair balance had been struck between the demands of the general community and the requirements of the applicant’s fundamental rights, the Court found that there had been a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions: it had not been shown that any public or third-party interest would have been adversely affected if the lease had been renewed; nor had there been anything inappropriate per se in including the renewal option in the lease. Not only had Mr   Stretch had an expectation of deriving future return on his investment, but the option to renew had been an important factor in view of the building obligations he had entered into and the otherwise limited period in which he could recoup his expenditure.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded the applicant’s estate EUR   31,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   45,000 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)   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.