CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 31 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB2AFE9B3 { width:15.21pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBD883C8E { width:3.91pt; display:inline-block } .sE1794090 { width:13.92pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C8FDD11 { width:99.46pt; display:inline-block } .s84202A69 { width:152.15pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s98D498D3 { width:146.14pt; display:inline-block } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sEC65736C { width:318.89pt; display:inline-block } .s499DE589 { width:242.91pt; display:inline-block } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sDC9BE5C1 { width:99.44pt; display:inline-block } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     413   31.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Violation Article 5 § 3 (1)     Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (application no. 35825/97)             Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 5 § 3 Violation Article 5 § 4 (2)     Hristov v. Bulgaria (no. 35436/97)               Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 5 § 3 (3)     Mihov v. Bulgaria (no. 35519/97)               Violation Article 5 § 4   Pre-trial detention – Length of criminal proceedings   Mohamed Nuri Al Akidi , an Iraqi national, was born in 1961. He is married to a Bulgarian national. Vladimir Ivanov Hristov , a Bulgarian national, was born in 1952. Mihail Simeonov Mihov , a Bulgarian national, was born in 1966.   All three applicants are in prison in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Mr Al Akidi and Mr   Hristov were arrested in September 1993 and remanded in custody on suspicion of using forged documents to obtain excise tax refunds unlawfully. Another person (Mr Ilijkov) was likewise arrested in October 1993. Mr Mihov was arrested and remanded in custody in November 1993 on suspicion of having aided and abetted them and having forged documents. Their applications for bail were repeatedly dismissed. The applicants were convicted on 31   January 1997 and sentenced to 11, 12 and 10 years’ imprisonment respectively. Subsequently they and Mr Ilijkov lodged applications with the European Court of Human Rights. Judgment was given in Mr Ilijkov’s case on 26 July 2001.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to a trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, all three applicants complained that their detention pending trial had been unjustified and unreasonably long. Mr Hristov and Mr   Mihov alleged further, under Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided by a court), that the examination of their appeals against detention had been unfair. Mr Al Akidi and Mr Hristov also complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), that the criminal proceedings had been unreasonably long.   The European Court of Human Rights referred to its judgment in Ilijkov v. Bulgaria (application no. 33977/96) and held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in these three cases. It noted that the applicants had remained in pre-trial detention for a period ranging from 3 years and 6 weeks to 3 years, 4 months and 21 days and considered that the grounds on which the detention had been prolonged could not be regarded as sufficient.   As in the Ilijkov case, the Court found that the judicial examination of Mr Hristov and Mr   Mihov ’s detention had not met the requirements of Article 5 § 4: in Mr Hristov ’s case the domestic courts had refused to examine arguments concerning the persistence of a reasonable suspicion and had disregarded certain arguments relevant to the lawfulness of the detention; moreover, there had been an inequality of arms in both cases.   In respect of Mr Al Akidi ’s and Mr Hristov ’s complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court found – as in the Ilijkov case – that the proceedings had been unreasonably long. They had lasted about five and half years in both cases with significant delays being caused by the authorities.   The Court awarded Mr Al Akidi and Mr Mihov 4,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and Mr Hristov EUR   3,000. It awarded Mr Al Akidi and Mr Hristov EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses and Mr Mihov EUR   2,800. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (4)     Kepenerov v. Bulgaria (no. 39269/98)   Violation Article 5 § 1   Detention in a psychiatric clinic   Ivan Raykov Kepenerov, a Bulgarian national, was born in 1939 and lives in Sofia. On 8   February 1995 an inquiry was opened into allegations that he had been harassing the director of the local telephone service and other employees. On 13 February 1996 a prosecutor ordered his forced psychiatric examination and instructed the police to arrest him and bring him to the local mental health centre. The applicant was not informed of those decisions. On 22 February 1996 he was brought to the Sofia mental health centre and, after a short examination, transferred to a psychiatric clinic. He was discharged on 22 March 1996 and lodged complaints on 1 September 1997 with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Minister of the Interior.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, Mr Kepenerov alleged that his detention in the psychiatric clinic had been arbitrary and unlawful.   The Court noted that Mr Kepenerov had been detained on the orders of a prosecutor who had had no power to order his detention and had not sought a prior medical assessment of the need for his confinement. Nor had there been any possibility of obtaining an independent review of its lawfulness. Accordingly, the confinement had had no basis in domestic law which, moreover, did not provide the requisite safeguards against arbitrariness. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 2,200 for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation Article 6 § 1 (5)     Doran v. Ireland (no. 50389/99)   Violation Article 13   Length of civil proceedings and lack of effective remedy   Terence and Maureen Doran, both Irish nationals, were born in 1958 and 1957 respectively and live in County Wicklow, Ireland. In October 1990 they bought a plot of land with planning permission to build a house. It subsequently emerged that they did not have a right of access to the site from the road. They had to discontinue the building works and sell the land.   On 17 July 1991 they brought proceedings in negligence, among other things, against their own solicitors, the vendors and the vendors’ solicitors. On 12 September 1995 the High Court found the vendors and the applicants’ solicitors liable. Following the applicants’ appeal to the Supreme Court, the vendors’ solicitors were also found liable. The proceedings ended on 15   December 1999 with the determination by the Taxing Master of the High Court of the costs to be recovered by the applicants. In October and November 1997 the Attorney General had expressed his concern at the delay in the case to the applicants, the trial judge and the deputy prime minister. The applicants had submitted medical certificates to the court attesting to Ms Doran’s severe anxiety and “frank depression” and to the great strain that the proceedings had put on Mr Doran.   The applicants complained, under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, of the length of the civil proceedings. They also complained of a breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted approximately eight years and five months; that the case had not been administratively or factually complex; and that the relevant authorities had been largely responsible for the delays. Having regard to what had been at stake for the applicants, the Court concluded that the proceedings had not been determined within a reasonable time.   The Court did not consider that the constitutional remedies to which the Government had referred could be considered “effective, adequate or accessible” for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention. While there might be some constitutional basis for the recognition of the right to the determination of a civil right within a reasonable time, the Government had not cited any example of a case involving a delay of the nature at issue in the present case that had resulted in the prevention of excessive delay or damages for delay. Accordingly, the Court did not consider that a claim based on the constitutional right to justice and to litigate had been shown to amount to an effective domestic remedy for excessively long proceedings.   It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and awarded the applicants jointly EUR   25,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     (6)     Guerrera and Fusco v. Italy (no. 40601/98)   Revision   Death of one of the applicants   Michela Guerrera and Pellegrino Fusco, both Italian nationals, were born in 1931 and 1927 respectively.   In a judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property) and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) on account of the length of the proceedings. It also awarded each applicant EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,250 for costs and expenses.   On 15 April 2003 Mrs Guerrera’s lawyer informed the Court that his client had died in January 2003 and applied for revision of the judgment of 3 April 2003.   The Court decided, in accordance with Rule 80 of its Rules of Court, to revise the judgment of 3 April 2003 in so far as it concerned Mrs Guerrera. It ruled that the sums that had been awarded to her by way of just satisfaction were to be divided between her heirs. Consequently, the Court held that Italy had to pay each of her three heirs EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 416.66 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Friendly settlement (7)     L.B. and Others v. Italy (application no. 46471/99) EUR 1,528.34 *           Violation Article 6 § 1       Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses (8)     Battistoni v. Italy (no. 66920/01)   EUR 3,000 EUR 2,000 (9)     De Gennaro v. Italy (no. 59634/00) EUR 85,700 EUR 3,000 EUR 4,059.52 (10)     Ferroni Rossi v. Italy (no. 63408/00)   EUR 6,000 EUR 4,000 (11)     Fezia and Others v. Italy (no. 60464/00)   EUR 3,000 * EUR 900 * (12)     Gatti and Others v. Italy (no. 59454/00)   EUR 1,106.69 * EUR 571.42 * (13)     Kraszewski v. Italy (no. 64151/00)   EUR 3,000 EUR 3,000 (14)     La Paglia v. Italy (no. 62020/00)   EUR 9,296.22 EUR 4,000 (15)     Marigliano v. Italy (no. 60388/00)   EUR 5,000 EUR 3,229.90 (16)     Miscioscia v. Italy (no. 58408/00)   EUR 3,000 EUR 3,500 (17)     Tempesti Chiesi and Chiesi v. Italy (no. 62000/00)   EUR 7,746.85 * EUR 2,000 * * to each of the applicants   Length of eviction proceedings   The applicants in the above 11 Italian cases complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   In all but one of the cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The case of L.B. and Others v. Italy has been struck out following a friendly settlement. The Court awarded the applicants the amounts indicated in euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (18)     Ramazan Sarı v. Turkey (no. 41926/98)   Friendly settlement   Allegation of ill-treatment in police custody   The applicant, Ramazan Sarı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Bingöl. He is the owner of the Sarıoğlu Oteli Hotel.   On 17 August 1997 the police searched the hotel restaurant and arrested the applicant, who was released the next day and prosecuted for resisting arrest.   The applicant claimed that he had been arrested because he had asked to see the officers’ search warrant. He said that he had been taken to Yenişehir Police Station, where he had been insulted and beaten. The authorities said that the search had been carried out as part of a general inspection and that the applicant had resisted arrest and had been taken to the police station by force. He was examined by a doctor that same day. The medical report stated that there were marks on the body consistent with assault. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint for ill-treatment.   In January 2001, following the entry into force of Law no. 4616 on Release on Licence and Stay of Criminal Proceedings for Offences committed prior to 23 April 1999, the Bingöl Criminal Court stayed both the criminal proceedings that had been brought on the applicant’s complaint and the criminal proceedings against the applicant.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant asserted that he had been ill-treated while in police custody. He further contended, under Article 5 (right to liberty and security), that he had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty. Lastly, he alleged that, contrary to Articles 6 (right of access to a court) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, he had been denied effective access to a court.   The case was struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicant is to receive EUR 23,000 for damage and costs and expenses.   The Turkish 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 degrading treatment of detainees as in the applicant’s case 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. 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.)   ***   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 .