CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 29 juillet 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sC6956624 { width:42.75pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF1DD9920 { width:88.17pt; display:inline-block } .s2CB0E5F5 { width:192.18pt; display:inline-block } .s98D498D3 { width:146.14pt; display:inline-block } .s68F01A5D { width:72.85pt; display:inline-block } .s78B11E5E { width:25.95pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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 [Note1]     412   29.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, of which only Liuba v. Romania is not final. [1]   Friendly settlement (1)     Červeňáková and Others v. Czech Republic (application no. 40226/98)     Expulsion of tenants   The applicants are six Czech nationals living in Ústí nad Labem. Margita Červeňáková was born in 1934, Gejza Červeňák in 1934, Aranka Horváthová in 1952, Ondrej Červeňák in 1966, Iveta Červeňáková in 1967 and Peter Mirga in 1953. They were Slovakian nationals at the material time and obtained Czech nationality in March and June 1994, with the exception of Ms Horváthová, who has been a Czech national from birth.   The applicants submitted that in February 1993 the police had gone into their flats and emptied them of their contents. They stated that they had been told that as a result of the division of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic they were required to return to Slovakia, where they would obtain housing, work and welfare benefits. The applicants had duly gone to Slovakia, where they were informed by the local authorities that they would not receive any welfare benefits or housing.   After living on the premises of Prešov train station for one month, the applicants returned to the Czech Republic. From April to November 1993, when the local mayor made substitute flats available, they lived in Ústí nad Labem in a park and later in a garage.   The applicants applied to the District Court for a declaration that they were entitled to the lease on their former flats and for an interlocutory order granting them access to the flats. They also brought an action against the local authorities, seeking protection of their personal rights.   The applicants alleged that they had been the victims of violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that they had had to live in unacceptable conditions, being unable to gain access to their homes. Relying on Article 6 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time), they complained of the length of the domestic proceedings they had instituted. They also complained of a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) on account of the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in respect of the length of proceedings. They relied on the above provisions both separately and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive an aggregate award of 900,000 Czech korunas (approximately 30,000 euros (EUR)) for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     M.M. and E.M.M. v. Poland (no. 76158/01)   Friendly settlement   Length of civil proceedings and property rights   The applicants, who are brother and sister, are Polish nationals, born in 1988 and 1990 respectively. They live in Ostrołęka (Poland). Their grandmother, who was appointed their foster parent after their father had murdered their mother on 26 August 1994, represented them before the European Court of Human Rights.   On 14 June 1996 the applicants brought proceedings for division of their mother’s estate and the matrimonial property. The parties reached a friendly settlement on 25 July 2001. The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time and, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), of a violation of their property rights due to the length of the proceedings.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 12,000 zlotys is to be paid for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Liuba v. Romania (no. 31166/96)   Struck out   Nationalisation of property   Marius Dionisie Liuba and Antoaneta Sabina Liuba are Romanian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1930 respectively and live in Timişoara.   As the heirs to an estate which included a property in Timişoara, they brought two successive actions to recover possession of the building, which had been nationalised in 1950 under Decree no. 92/1950. It appears from the case file that the applicants’ second action is still pending before the Supreme Court of Justice.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the refusal by the Supreme Court of Justice to recognise that the national courts had jurisdiction to determine actions for recovery of possession. They further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The Court noted that the applicants had not replied to its requests for information as to what had happened to the property in question and as to the progress or outcome of the second action for recovery of possession. Having regard to their conduct, it took the view that they no longer intended to pursue the application. Furthermore, no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined by the Convention required it to continue the examination of the application. The Court therefore decided unanimously to strike the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Toktaş v. Turkey (no. 38382/97)   Friendly settlement   Alleged ill-treatment in police custody   Hayrettin Toktaş is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.   He was arrested on 27 February 1995 in connection with police operations against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and taken into police custody until 13 March 1995, when he was placed in pre-trial detention. On that date he was examined by a doctor, who drew up a medical report in which he noted congestion in the abdominal region. It appears from a further medical examination carried out on 14 March 1995 that Mr Toktaş had bruises on his body, a pain in his testicles and congestion on the sole of one of his feet.   In May 1995 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers in whose custody he had been detained. The officers were acquitted by the Istanbul Assize Court on 5   June 1997.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicant submitted that while in police custody he had been subjected to treatment breaching the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 26,000.   The Turkish Government have also made the following declaration: “The Government of the Republic of Turkey regret the occurrence of the incidents complained of by Mr Hayrettin Toktaş in his application no. 38382/97, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions. It is accepted that the recourse to torture of detainees constitutes, inter alia , 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 ill-treatment is complied with 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 also that new legal and administrative measures have recently been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of ill-treatment in circumstances similar to those of the instant application. ...   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.)   (5)     Brown v. the United Kingdom (no. 52770/99)   Friendly settlement   Discharge from Royal Air Force on grounds of homosexuality   Christopher W. Brown, a British national, was born in 1963 and lives on the Isle of Man. On 30 June 1999 he was discharged from the Royal Air Force (“RAF”) after more than 19 years of service and having attained the rank of sergeant. It was noted that his service to the RAF had been exemplary.   He complained, under Articles 8 (right to respect for private life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, about the investigation into his sexual orientation and about his discharge from the RAF pursuant to the Ministry of Defence’s policy at the relevant time against having homosexuals in the armed forces.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 52,500 pounds sterling is to be paid in full and final settlement of all claims, including costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (6)     Z.W. v. the United Kingdom (no. 34962/97)       Friendly settlement   Ill-treatment while in foster care and lack of remedy   Z.W., a British national, was born in 1972 and has been detained in Rampton Hospital, a secure psychiatric institution, since 1993. In July 1973 she and her three siblings were admitted to foster care by the local authority following reports that their mother was unable to care for them and of squalid living conditions.   In 1976 the applicant and her sister were placed with foster parents. The local authority noted various concerns about the placement and in 1980 the girls were almost removed. In 1989 the applicant finally left the foster home. In 1995 she brought proceedings in negligence against the local authority. A psychiatric report was prepared setting out her account of the horrific abuse she had endured during her placement with her foster parents. Her claim was struck out in 1996 on the basis that, under English law at the time, there was no duty of care owed by a local authority to children in its care.   The applicant complained, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, that the local authority had failed to protect her welfare while she was in foster care and, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that she had had no remedy for her complaints.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 77,000 pounds sterling is to be paid in full and final settlement of the case and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is in 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 .