CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 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 } .s674EA1CA { width:49.41pt; display:inline-block } .sA2B16EFE { width:100.76pt; display:inline-block } .sB7587365 { width:131.5pt; display:inline-block } .s211AB664 { width:26.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF0EE6833 { width:73.47pt; display:inline-block } .s6972DC1A { width:38.68pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sB73A217C { width:162.13pt; display:inline-block } .s69059758 { width:156.83pt; display:inline-block } .sAF27E36F { width:104.79pt; 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]     533   28.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1] [Note2]     Baars v. the Netherlands (application no. 44320/98)   Violation Article 6 § 2 The applicant, Jacobus Johannes Marie Baars, is a Netherlands national, born in 1928 and living in Maaseik, Belgium.   On 15 February 1993 Mr Baars was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of forgery and being an accessory to bribery of a public official, Mr B. The applicant was released from police custody on 19 February 1993 and, on 7 June 1995, informed that the case against him had been closed. He appeared as a witness in the trial of Mr B.   Mr Baars claimed a total of 205,000 Netherlands guilders (NLG) for reimbursement of costs and expenses he incurred during the criminal proceedings against him and for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage for time spent in pre-trial detention. He was awarded NLG 114.60 for travel expenses and the remainder of his claim was rejected. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was rejected on the ground that he had been involved in forging a receipt which was, among other things, the basis for the conviction of Mr B for participating in forgery.   He complained that the Court of Appeal’s decision contained a clear statement, based on findings resulting from the conviction of another person, that he was guilty, in violation of Article 6 §   2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning amounted in substance to a determination of the applicant’s guilt without the applicant having been “found guilty according to law”. It was based on findings in proceedings against another person, in which the applicant participated only as a witness, without the protection guaranteed to the defence under Article 6 of the Convention.   The Court, therefore, held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2. The Court further held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. He was awarded 2,500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Rakevich v. Russia (no. 58973/00)   Violation Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 The applicant, Tamara Nikolayevna Rakevich, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Yekaterinburg (Russia). On 25 September 1999 she was taken to a psychiatric hospital, where the duty doctor considered she was suffering from a serious mental disorder. On 26   September the hospital applied to a court for approval of her confinement. Two days later she was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia by a medical commission, which confirmed that she should be kept in hospital. On 5   November 1999 her application was considered by Yekaterinburg District Court which found that her detention had been necessary.   The applicant alleged that her detention in the psychiatric hospital had violated Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that the applicant did not have any history of mental disorder prior to her admission to hospital on 26 September 1999. Although a medical report was necessary before a person could be admitted to a psychiatric hospital, that requirement could be dispensed with in an emergency. In the light of the medical report that was prepared on the day of her admission, the Court found that the applicant’s condition constituted an emergency. Her detention was not arbitrary, as the decision to admit her had been taken on the basis of psychiatric evidence of mental disorder.   As to the lawfulness of that detention, the Court noted that section 34(1) of the Psychiatric Treatment Act required the judge to decide, within five days of receiving an application by the hospital, whether the patient should remain in detention. In the case before it, the District Court had taken 39 days to decide the hospital’s application. Accordingly, the Court found that the applicant had not been detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   González Doria Durán de Quiroga v. Spain (no. 59072/00)   Lopez Sole Y Martin de Vargas v. Spain (no. 61133/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Fernando Gonzáles Doria Durán de Quiroga and Francisco Lopez Sole y Martin de Vargas, are Spanish nationals who were born in 1938 and 1948 respectively and live in Almendralejo and Madrid.   They are both lawyers specialising in nobiliary law. They issued proceedings on behalf of themselves and close relatives seeking the restoration of their titles. On 8 June 1985 criminal proceedings were brought against them for forgery and searches were carried out of their homes and at other locations. They were accused of fabricating documents bestowing various noble titles on people who had no legitimate claim to the titles.   In a judgment of 5 May 1997, the Madrid Audiencia Provincial sentenced Mr Lopez Sole y Martin de Vargas to three years’ imprisonment for continuing offences of forging documents and Mr Gonzáles Doria Durán de Quiroga to four years’ imprisonment for a like offence and for fraud. They were also prohibited from practising as lawyers for the duration of the sentence. The Constitutional Court dismissed an appeal by Mr Gonzáles Doria Durán de Quiroga on 13 October 1999 and by Mr Lopez Sole y Martin de Vargas on 10 February 2000. In December 2000 the applicants received pardons.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings.   The Court found that the proceedings against Mr Gonzáles Doria Durán de Quiroga had lasted 14 years, four months and five days and the proceedings against Mr Lopez Sole y Martin de Vargas 14 years, eight months and two days. While accepting that there had been complex features to the cases, it nonetheless found that there had been a breach of the “reasonable-time” requirement set out in Article 6 § 1. It consequently held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, it awarded Mr Gonzáles Doria Durán de Quiroga 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. Mr Lopez Sole y Martin de Vargas was awarded EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Stone Court Shipping Company, S.A. v. Spain (no. 55524/00) Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Stone Court Shipping Company S.A., is a company based in Madrid.   After one of its vessels was shipwrecked, the applicant company brought an action in damages against the State. The action was dismissed by the Audiencia Nacional . The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law with the court on the duty roster on the day before the time limit for appealing was due to expire. The appeal was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court as being out of time, as it was registered by the central registry of the court two days after the statutory time-limit had expired. The Supreme Court relied in its decision on two decrees which provided that appeals could only be lodged with the court on the duty roster if the time-limit for appealing was due to expire that day and the court with which the appeal had to be lodged was closed for business.   The applicant company complained under Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) that the Supreme Court had declared its appeal on points of law inadmissible as being out of time, when it had been lodged with the court on the duty roster within the statutory time-limit.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the restriction on the lodging of documents with the court on the duty roster could not, in itself, be called into question. Nevertheless, the unusual combination of events had made the consequences of the restrictions, as applied by the Supreme Court, disproportionate to the restrictions themselves. Consequently, the domestic courts particularly strict interpretation of a procedural rule had deprived the applicant company of its right of access to a court to bring an appeal on points of law. The Court accordingly held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In the light of that finding, it held unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 13.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court decided, by five votes to two, to award the applicant company EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Minjat v. Switzerland (no. 38223/97)   No violation Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 The applicant, Pol Laurent Minjat, is a Swiss national, who was born in 1946 and lives at Thônex (Switzerland).   He was a suspected of having misappropriated more than 1,000,000 Swiss francs belonging to his employer, a Swiss bank, and was charged with embezzlement on 26 June 1997. On the same day, the investigating judge issued a warrant for his arrest and an order authorising him to be held in police custody for “a maximum of eight days”, that is to say until 4 July. In a reasoned decision of 29 July 1997, the Indictment Division authorised the applicant’s continued detention. In May 1999 the applicant was sentenced to thirty months’ imprisonment for embezzlement.   The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) that his detention from 4 to 29 July 1997 was illegal and that the Federal Court should have ordered his immediate release.   The Court found that the applicant’s detention during the relevant period was lawful under domestic law. It further noted that less than a month had elapsed between the expiry of the arrest warrant and the order for the applicant’s continued detention and that the applicant had thereafter been detained in accordance with the proper procedure. The applicant had been given a prison sentence and the period he had spent in pre-trial detention had been deducted in full from the sentence imposed. In those circumstances, the Court found that the applicant’s detention during the relevant period had not been arbitrary. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1.   In the light of its finding that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was “lawful” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 4. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Kalın, Gezer and Ötebay v. Turkey (nos. 24849/94, 24850/94 and 24941/94)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Talip Kalın, Ali Gezer and Ekrem Ötebay, are Turkish nationals. The first applicant was born in 1967 and the other two applicants in 1973. They live in Ağrı, Kahramanmaraş and Muş respectively.   In February 1994 they were taken into police custody on suspicion of being members of the PKK. They were interrogated by police officers and made confessions, allegedly under duress. They were examined by doctors, who found marks on their bodies that had been caused by blows. The applicants lodged complaints against the custody officers alleging torture. The officers were acquitted by Istanbul Assize Court for lack of evidence.   The applicants complained under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. They also complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the excessive length of their detention, which had lasted 23 days, 31 days and 25 days respectively.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 27,000 is to be paid to each of the applicants.   The Turkish Government has 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 in custody notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such occurrences. It is accepted that the recourse to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees 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 applications as well as more effective investigations.   “The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers 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 cooperation in this process will continue to take place.” (The judgment is available only in English.)   Karatay v. Turkey (no. 36596/97)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Mehmet Emin Karatay, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1963 and lived in İzmir at the material time. On 9 July 1996 he was arrested on suspicion of having engaged in separatist activities and detained. On 17 July 1996 he was brought before a judge who made in order for him to be detained pending trial. On 2 August he was charged with being a member of an illegal organisation, the PKK.   The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the excessive length of his detention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 4,000 is to be paid for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Köroğlu v. Turkey (no. 39446/98)   Friendly settlement Kovankaya v. Turkey (no. 39447/98) The applicants, Dilek Köroğlu and Nuran Kovankaya, are both Turkish nationals, who were born in 1976 and lived in Istanbul at the material time.   They were arrested on 15 and 16 January 1997 and held in custody on suspicion of having engaged in the activities of illegal organisations. On 29 January 1997 they were brought before a judge, who granted them bail. On 3 April 1997 the public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings against Ms Köroğlu and on 19 October 1998 Istanbul State Security Court acquitted Ms Kovankaya.   The applicants complained of violations of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and Article 5 § 4 (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   The cases have been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 7,000 is to be paid to Ms Köroğlu and EUR 6,500 to Ms Kovankaya. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Oğras and Others v. Turkey (no. 39978/98)   Friendly settlement The application was lodged by four Turkish nationals: Sabri Oğras, his wife Sultan Oğras, and their sons Necat Oğras and Nihat Oğras.   In July 1995 Mr and Mrs Oğraş were taken to the police station with their daughter for questioning about the activities of their son, Serdar Oğraş. The following day Serdar Oğraş was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murder of two soldiers. He made a confession and offered to take the police officers to the place where he had hidden the dead soldiers’ weapons.   According to the authorities, on 4 July 1995 Serdar Oğraş took the police officers to his parents’ garden where they were attacked by members of the PKK and were forced to fire on Serdar Oğraş as he was attempting to escape, fatally wounding him. The applicants disputed that version of the events.   Serdar Oğraş’ death became the subject of criminal and administrative investigations, which are still pending.   The applicants complained under Article 2 (right to life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) about the circumstances in which Serdar Oğras had died. They also alleged that the investigations were ineffective. They complained under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment) and Articles 13 and 14 about injuries that were inflicted on Serdar Oğras before his death and on Sabri Oğras, about the treatment of the other members of the family while in police custody and the distress they had been caused by Serdar Oğras’s extrajudicial execution. They also alleged breaches of Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion).   The case was struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under which the applicants were to receive EUR 66,000 for damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.   The Turkish Government also made the following declaration: “The Government of the Republic of Turkey regret the occurrence of incidents involving the use of excessive force which have led to individual applications being lodged complaining of loss of life – as in the case of Mr Serdar Oğraş – as also the deep anguish that was caused to the members of his family, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions.   “The Government accept that the use of excessive force resulting in death and the lack of appropriate instructions constitutes a violation of Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government therefore undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the right to life – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – is 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 deaths in circumstances similar to those of the instant application 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 cooperation 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 . [Note2]   If you keep this sentence, do not forget to remove the corresponding sentence for each individual case.