CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 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 } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s31E6F284 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s44D0F915 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s3F26CF01 { width:298.17pt; display:inline-block } .s9C75F0EE { width:290.88pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s8C83F80F { width:182.83pt; display:inline-block } .sC9961F94 { width:375.54pt; 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     540   30.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly settlements are final [1] .     Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy (application no. 31524/96) Article 41 (just satisfaction) The applicant, Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l., is a limited company that was formed in 1983. It owns the Belvedere Hotel in Monte Argentario and a strip of land giving patrons of the hotel direct access to the sea.   The company was deprived of adjoining land by the local authority under a judge-made rule, the “constructive-expropriation rule”, which precluded the restitution of land when works had been completed on it in the public interest.   In a decision of 30 May 2000, the Court found that the interference amounted to an appropriation of the applicant company’s land by the State and held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It reserved the question of just satisfaction, as it was not ready for determination. In November 2001 the Court directed that it would be advisable to obtain an expert assessment of the current value of the land, its value when the authorities took possession and the amount of pecuniary damage sustained (both if the land was returned to the company and if it was retained by the authorities). The parties jointly instructed a valuer.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the applicant company awarded the applicant 763,691 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 25,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 30,000 for costs and expenses. It also ordered the Italian State to pay the valuer EUR 10,000 for his report. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 In the following three Italian cases, the applicants complained that they had been unable to recover possession of their apartments over an extended period, owing to a lack of police assistance. They also complained of the length of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Cavicchi and Reggeri v. Italy (no. 56717/00) 32,793 9,000 2,100 Cucinotta v. Italy (no. 63938/00) - 6,000 1,200 Rispoli v. Italy (no. 55388/00)   6,275     6,000 2,500   The Court held unanimously in each of these cases that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicants the amounts in euros set out above. (The judgments are available only in English).   Friendly settlement In the following two Italian cases, the applicants complained that they had been unable to recover possession of their apartments over an extended period, owing to a lack of police assistance. They also complained of the length of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Cianfanelli Banci v. Italy (no. 60663/00) Piovano v. Italy (no. 65652/01) The applications were struck out of the list following friendly settlements under whose terms Mrs Cianfanelli Banci was to receive EUR 7,085 and Mr Piovano EUR 13,085. ( Cianfanelli Banci v. Italy is available only in French and Piovano v. Italy only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Ganci v. Italy (no. 41576/98)   The applicant, Domenico Ganci, is an Italian national who was born in 1958 and is currently being held in Spolète Prison.   He was arrested on suspicion of having taken part in the murder of Judge Falcone and his escort and held in detention pending trial. He was convicted of the murder by the Caltanissetta Assize Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was later convicted of other offences by the Palermo Assize Court for which he also received life sentences.   From November 1996 to December 2000, in accordance with nine orders issued by the Minister of Justice, the applicant was held under the special prison regime established by section 41 bis of the Prison System (Organisation) Act. Under that regime, restrictions were placed on prisoners’ rights. The applicant appealed against eight of the orders. The courts upheld two of his appeals and declared four others inadmissible on the grounds that the applicant no longer had an interest in the appeals as the orders had lapsed.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that he had been subjected to a special prison regime and of delays in the criminal proceedings.   The Court noted that, under Italian law, prisoners have ten days in which to appeal against an order of the Minister of Justice subjecting them to a special regime and that the court hearing the appeal must decide it within ten days. In the case before it, the courts had declared four of the applicant’s appeals inadmissible without considering the merits, as the orders concerned had lapsed by the time the appeals were heard.   The Court noted that the failure to decide the appeals on the merits had rendered ineffective the courts’ powers to review the Minister of Justice’s orders. Moreover, the reason the legislature required the courts to decide such appeals within ten days was because of the serious consequences the special regime had on prisoners’ rights and the limited temporal validity of the Minister’s orders. Consequently, the courts’ failure to decide the applicant’s appeals had infringed his right to have his case heard by a court. The Court accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court had asked if the guarantees under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) had been respected. Having found a violation of Article 6 § 1, however, it decided that it was unnecessary to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 13. It also held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation was in itself just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Violation Article 5 §§ 1 and 3   Violation Article 6 § 1 Goral v. Poland (no. 38654/97)   Violation Article 8 The applicant, Jerzy Goral, is a Polish national, born in 1944 and living in Lublin, Poland.   He was taken into custody on 23 May 1996 and charged on 24 May with hiding a stolen vehicle and being in possession of a counterfeit banknote. In August 1996 the Lublin Regional Court remanded the applicant in custody until 23 November 1996. On 17 December 1996 a bail application by Mr Goral was dismissed. He appealed, but his appeal was dismissed on 15 January 1997, on the ground that the prison term he faced justified his detention.   In October 1997 the prison authorities opened and read a letter from the applicant to the European Commission of Human Rights. The applicant was released from custody on 20 November 1997.   He was convicted and sentenced in January 1998, but his conviction was quashed on appeal. On 23 July 2002, following a retrial, he was convicted of receiving stolen vehicles and sentenced to two year’s imprisonment and a fine. He appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention (which had lasted almost 18   months) and that his detention after 23 November 1996 was unlawful. He also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him (which had lasted about six years and six months) and that his correspondence had been monitored during his detention.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that, between 23 November 1996, when the period for which Mr Goral was remanded in custody expired, and 17 December 1996, when his application for bail was dismissed, there was no judicial decision authorising his detention. The Court, therefore, held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 1 (right to liberty and security).   Concerning the length of the applicant’s detention, the Court considered that it had initially been justified by a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence charged. Since the filing of the bill of indictment with the trial court on 22 November 1996, the domestic courts had relied in particular on the length of the sentence which could be imposed on him as justification for his continued detention. However, that was not a “relevant and sufficient” ground for holding the applicant in detention for almost 18 months.   As the applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and was eligible for parole after serving half his sentence, it also appeared that the time he had spent in pre-trial detention might in fact exceed the time he was required to serve under the prison sentence. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge).   Finding that the applicant’s trial had exceeded a reasonable time, the Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court reiterated that Polish law concerning the monitoring of correspondence by public authorities in force before 1   September   1998 was not sufficiently clear. Since the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence was not “in accordance with the law”, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The applicant was awarded EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Alfatlı and Others v. Turkey (as regards the applicant Mahmut Memduh Uyan) (no. 32984/96)     The 16 applicants, Ali Alfatlı,   Haşim   Aydıncak, Nusrat Safa Akyürek, Ahmet Asena, Mahmut   Memduh Uyan, İbrahim   Levent Saçılanateş, Mehmet Kaplandur, Nevzat Cömert, Özgür Şahin, Bülent Forta, Hüseyin Cihan, Hasan Yorulmaz, Ahmet Kirami Kılınç, Mehmet   Engin Höke, Mustafa   Aslan and Sedat Göçmen, are Turkish nationals. Between 1980 and 1985 the applicants were arrested and placed in police custody. They were accused of membership of an illegal organisation. The Ankara Martial Law Court remanded them in custody.   The applicants all complained that the criminal proceedings were not determined within a reasonable time and 11 of the applicants also complained that they had been tried by a martial-law court, which was not independent and impartial. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   A friendly settlement was reached with all but one of the applicants, in which awards ranging from EUR 14,500 to EUR 161,000 were made. The Court delivered judgment concerning these applicants on 2 October 2003. The Court noted that the applicant Mahmut Memduh Uyan did not wish to reach a friendly settlement in the case.   Concerning Mahmut Memduh Uyan, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 both concerning the length of the proceedings, which had lasted almost 11 years (of which the Court can take into consideration just over 8 years and 11 months [2] ), and because the Martial Law Court was not independent and impartial.   The Court reiterated that where an applicant had been convicted by a tribunal which was not independent and impartial the most appropriate solution would be to grant him a retrial.   The applicant was awarded EUR 11,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 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 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. [2] From 28 January 1987, when Turkey recognised the right to individual petition. [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 .