CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 décembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F148214 { width:126.79pt; display:inline-block } .s29D6FB6E { width:84.78pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s78BF9AE4 { width:214.16pt; 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   649 18.12.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Italy and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Violations Article 6 § 1 Skondrianos v. Greece (applications nos. 63000/00, 74291/01 and 74292/01) The applicant, Alexandros Skondrianos, is a Greek national.   Three complaints were lodged against him between 1990 and 1993 alleging insulting and threatening behaviour. Criminal proceedings were brought and on 17 January 1995 he was convicted in his absence to three terms of imprisonment or a day-fine in lieu. The prosecutor granted him a stay of the execution of the penalty until 9 September 1999.   On 14 July 1999 he appealed on points of law. The public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation recommended that the appeals be dismissed as being out of time. On 1 February 2000 the Court of Cassation, sitting in chambers, declared the appeals inadmissible under Article 508 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the applicant had not produced a certificate from a prison governor attesting that he had been in prison at the time when the appeals had been examined.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights that his appeals on points of law had been dismissed on the ground that he had not surrendered to custody. He also complained that the proceedings had been unfair.   Referring to its case-law, the European Court of Human Rights noted that it had already held that requiring accused persons to surrender to custody impaired the very essence of the right of appeal by imposing a disproportionate burden on them, thus upsetting the fair balance that should be struck between the legitimate concern to ensure that judicial decisions were enforced, on the one hand, and the right of access to the Court of Cassation and exercise of the rights of the defence on the other. The Court saw no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.   As regards the applicant’s complaint that he had not had a fair hearing, the Court acknowledged that the Court of Cassation in chambers, as a court, was free to declare appeals inadmissible on any grounds it considered relevant. However, in the present case, the recommendation that the appeals be declared inadmissible had been made solely by the public prosecutor and had been based on a single ground, so that the accused had been compelled to concentrate his arguments on that particular issue. The failure to mention any other ground for declaring the appeals inadmissible was likely to have taken the accused by surprise, particularly as he might legitimately have believed that Article 508 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not form a basis for declaring an appeal inadmissible, since the execution of his sentence had been stayed at the time he had lodged his appeal. Furthermore, the applicant could have challenged the public prosecutor’s recommendation that the appeals be declared inadmissible, since he had not received a copy of the full text of the judgment in which he had been convicted by the Court of Appeal.     In those circumstances, the Court considered that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation in chambers had infringed the principle of adversarial proceedings. It also considered that the applicant had suffered an excessive restriction of his right of access to a court and, therefore, of his right to a fair hearing. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 1,700 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gelsomini Sigeri S.r.l. v. Italy (no. 63417/00) The applicant complained about her prolonged inability – through lack of police assistance – to recover possession of her apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 13,285 for pecuniary damage and EUR 2,829.03 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Pezone v. Italy (no. 42098/98)   Violation Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 The applicant, Luigi Pezone, is an Italian national who was born in 1955 and lives in San Remo.   Various sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him and he was given a series of prison sentences. In November 1991 the Trieste public prosecutor determined the aggregate length of his sentences and directed that he should be released in April 1992. Accordingly, the applicant was released on 4 April 1992 after serving the sentences. However, the Naples public prosecutor ordered his arrest with a view to his serving a two-year prison sentence that had been imposed in 1989.   The applicant was arrested on 11 December 1992. He was released on 25 March 1994 after the Naples public prosecutor discovered that a period of two years, five months and 29 days he had spent in detention pending trial had been mistakenly omitted from the calculation of the time he had already served.   The applicant unsuccessfully sued the public prosecutor who had calculated the length of his sentence and the one who had ordered his detention in 1992.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, the applicant maintained that his detention for a period of 15 months and 14 days (from 11 December 1992 to 25 March 1994) had been unlawful. He also complained that he had not received any compensation for the period during which he had been unlawfully detained.   The Court noted that the applicant had been detained because of an error in the calculation of his sentence and that he had been released when the error had been discovered. Accordingly, no relevant grounds had been given to justify his detention. The detention could therefore not be regarded as having been “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” or “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision.   The Court also observed that domestic legislation had not afforded the applicant the opportunity to submit a claim for compensation for unlawful detention to the Italian authorities. It noted, lastly, that the applicant’s claim for damages against the public prosecutors had been unsuccessful. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR   35,000 for the damage sustained and EUR 8,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Yurtseven and Others v. Turkey (no.31730/96)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Ali Yurtseven, Haşim Yurtseven, Abdullah Özeken and Sabri Sarıtaş, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1975, 1934 and 1971 respectively and live in Yüksekova (south-east Turkey). They are close relatives of Şemsettin Yurtseven, Mikdat Özeken and Münür Sarıtaş, who were detained by soldiers on 27 October 1995 during a military operation in the village of Ağaçlı. The applicants have had no news of them since.   Criminal proceedings were brought against the person in charge of the military operation, who was accused of having beaten Şemsettin Yurtseven to death before proceeding to execute Mikdat Özeken and Münür Sarıtaş because they had witnessed events. He was acquitted for lack of evidence.   The applicants alleged violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 7 (no punishment without law) of the Convention on account of the disappearance of their relatives and the anxiety caused by the lack of information about their fate.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive EUR 160,000.   In addition, the Turkish Government have made the following declaration: “The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application, in particular the disappearance of the applicants’ three relatives. It is accepted that the unrecorded deprivation of liberty and insufficient investigations into allegations, as in the instant case, of subsequent disappearance of detainees, constitute violations of Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention and, having regard to the anguish caused to the applicants and their families, a violation of Article   3 of the Convention.   “The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures with a view to ensuring that all deprivations of liberty are fully and accurately recorded by the authorities and that effective investigations into alleged disappearances of detainees are carried out in accordance with their obligations under the Convention. 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 disappearance of detainees as well as more effective independent investigations into allegations of disappearance such as those made by the applicants…   “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 English.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following two Turkish cases the applicants were tried by a national security court and given prison sentences for being members of, or having aided and abetted, illegal armed organisations. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, as a military judge had sat as a member of the national security court. They also complained that the proceedings that had resulted in their conviction had been unfair and that there had been various other violations of Article 6 of the Convention.   Çetinkaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 57944/00) The applicants, Yavuz Çetinkaya, Mehmet Aydın, Zeynep Yüksel and Helya Adıbelli, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975, 1977, 1959 and 1955 respectively. Mr Çetinkaya was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment, Ms Yüksel to four years and six months and Ms   Adıbelli and Mr Aydın each to three years and nine months.   Ükünç and Güneş v. Turkey (no. 42775/98)   The applicants, Volkan Ükünç and Deniz Güneş, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1980 and live in Edirne. They were found guilty of having aided and abetted the DHKP-C Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front) and were each sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment.   The Court reiterated that 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, it held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court also reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not under any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to persons subject to its jurisdiction. It therefore held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held unanimously in both cases that the judgments in themselves constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants. It considered that in cases in which it had found that applicants had been convicted by a court that was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress would in principle be for them to be retried by an independent and impartial court at an early date. In the case of Çetinkaya and Others v. Turkey the Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, and in Ükünç and Güneş v. Turkey it awarded the applicants EUR   1,500. (The Çetinkaya and Others v. Turkey judgment is available only in French and the Ükünç and Güneş v. Turkey judgment 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.