CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 octobre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s6A184BC2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s1FD6BEAD { height:4pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s94C36C9A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s8FA386DE { width:104.11pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; 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]     509   16.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, the United Kingdom and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]       Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1   The applicants in the following five 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)of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).       Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Brienza v. Italy (no. 62849/00) 16,000 6,000 3,000 Calosi v. Italy (no.   63947/00) - 3,000 1,000 Savio v. Italy (no. 59537/00) - 3,000 3,500 Serafini v. Italy (no. 58607/00)      300 3,000 3,000 Tassinari v. Italy (no. 47758/99) 29,600 3,000      3,296.49     The Court held unanimously in all these cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 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.)   Wynne v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (no. 67385/01)                            Violation Article 5 § 4 Violation Article 5 § 5 The applicant, Edward Wynne, is United Kingdom national, who was born in 1939 and is currently detained in HM Prison Full Sutton.   In 1964, he was convicted of the murder of a woman whom he had violently assaulted and was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. In 1980, he was released on life licence after a positive recommendation from the Parole Board.   In June 1981, the applicant killed a 75-year-old woman. His plea of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility was accepted by the court. In January 1982 a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment was imposed by the judge having regard to the extreme danger to the public posed by the applicant. At the same time, the court revoked his life licence concerning his earlier sentence of mandatory life imprisonment.   The applicant’s “tariff” (minimum period of detention) fixed by the trial judge on the manslaughter offence expired in June 1991. He was informed that his continued detention was based on the risk he represented.   The applicant claims the Parole Board reviewed his case once in 1999, without holding an oral hearing, and declined to recommend release. The United Kingdom Government maintain that the Board considered the applicant’s case twice. In 1994, it concluded that his behaviour was aggressive and intimidatory and that he represented a high risk to the public. In 1997, it concluded that he remained far too great a risk to warrant transfer to open conditions. Of the reports before the Parole Board, none recommended early release or early transfer to open conditions. Mr Wynne complained that he did not have a proper review of the lawfulness of his continued detention as a mandatory life prisoner and that he had no enforceable right to compensation. He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court recalled that, after the expiry of an applicant’s tariff, which was the punishment element of the sentence, continued detention depended on elements of risk and dangerousness that could change with the course of time. Article 5 § 4 therefore required that the applicant   be able periodically to challenge the continuing legality of his detention in an appropriate procedure. The Parole Board did not have any power to order his release and could only make recommendations to the Secretary of State. Nor did any oral hearing take place, with the opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses relevant to any allegations that the applicant remained a risk to the public. The fact that the Parole Board had never   recommended the applicant’s release did not deprive him of the right to have his continued detention reviewed by a body with the power to order his release.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Noting that no possibility of obtaining compensation existed at the relevant time in domestic law in respect of the breach of Article 5 § 4, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   No award has been made for just satisfaction, the applicant having made no claim within the required time limit. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Ayşe Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 49164/99) Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 37452/97)   Ayşe Kılıç v. Turkey The applicant, Ayşe Kılıç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Ankara. On 10 March 1998 the Ankara National Security Court sentenced her to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation, the Turkish Revolutionary Communists’ Union. Her conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 28 December 1998.   Demirtaş v.Turkey The applicant, Nurettin Demirtaş, is a Turkish national born in 1972. At the time of his application he was in Buca Prison (Turkey). He was brought before the İzmir National Security Court on suspicion of being the head of the PKK’s youth branch in İzmir and was sentenced to eighteen years and nine months’ imprisonment. In a judgment of 23 January 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment given at first instance.   In both these cases the applicants complained that the national security courts which had tried and convicted them could not be regarded as independent and impartial tribunals because one of their members was a military judge. They alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention. Mr Demirtaş also complained of a violation of Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention.   Referring to its case-law, ther Court reiterated that civilians standing trial for offences under the Criminal Code had legitimate reason to fear that a national security court which included a military judge among its members might not be independent and impartial. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court also noted that Mr Demirtaş ’s other complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) had been lodged out of time. It therefore declared them inadmissible.   The Court held unanimously in the case of Ayşe Kılıç and by six votes to one in the case of Demirtaş that the judgments constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage allegedly sustained by the applicants. It awarded applicants EUR 2,000 each for costs and expenses, less the sum of EUR 625.05 already received in legal aid in Mr Demirtaş ’s case. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Başak and Others v. Turkey (no. 29875/96)   Friendly settlement   The applicants, Beşir Başak, Mehmet Ayaz, İbrahim Şahin, Bedren Turğut, Katibe Özdemir and Kasim Turğut, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1946, 1943, 1937, 1944, 1965 and 1928 respectively and live in Kadifekale (İzmir). At the material time the six applicants all lived in the village of Kayaballı (Mardin).   According to the applicants, nearly 500 soldiers and members of the security forces surrounded the village of Kayaballı in the evening of 14 May 1995. The soldiers assembled the villagers in a square, beat some of them with rifle butts and threatened and insulted them. They subsequently set fire to a number of houses.   The applicants complained that the acts of violence carried out by the security forces in May 1995 had breached Articles 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Mehmet Ayaz also submitted that his brother, Hüseyin Ayaz, had been the victim of an extrajudicial execution, in breach of Article 2 (right to life).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 10,000 is to be paid to Beşir Başak and EUR 20,000 to each of the other applicants and to Hüseyin Ayaz’s heirs.   The Government have also made the following declaration: “The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of destruction of homes, property and possessions resulting from the acts of agents of the State in south-east Turkey, obliging civilians to leave their villages, and the failure by the authorities to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances surrounding events such as those alleged by the applicants, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such acts and to remedy such failures.   It is accepted that such acts and failures constitute a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, given the circumstances of the resulting destruction and suffering, of Article 3 of the Convention.   The Government also deplore the occurrence of individual cases of death resulting from the failure by the authorities to protect the lives of detainees and to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances surrounding their death, as in the case of Mr Hüseyin Ayaz, a relative of one of the applicants, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such incidents. It is accepted that such acts and failures constitute a violation of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention.   The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the individual rights guaranteed by Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations, in accordance with Articles 2 and 13 – are respected in the future. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of cases of destruction of property, death and ill-treatment in circumstances similar to those of the instant application and in more effective investigations being carried out...   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 Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.   [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 .