CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 avril 2004

.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 } .sC2BE9D48 { width:4.09pt; display:inline-block } .s882796D2 { width:156.82pt; display:inline-block } .sF0D5BB48 { width:161.48pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s99C6B9D9 { width:70.14pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   174 6.4.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Slimane-Kaïd v. France (no. 3) (application no. 45130/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Mohamed Slimane Kaïd, is a French national who was born in 1941 and lives in Elancourt.   On 9 October and 21 November 1989 he lodged criminal complaints against two company directors for forgery of documents. He also sought leave to join the proceedings as a civil party seeking damages. The proceedings ended on 2 April 2003 with the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal to the Court of Cassation against the decision that there was no case to answer.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the length of proceedings in respect of his complaints.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings in question had lasted nearly 14 years and six months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that this had exceeded the reasonable time required by Article 6 § 1 and held unanimously that there had been a breach of that provision. The Court awarded the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   J.G. v. Poland (no. 36258/97)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Mr J.G., is a Polish national, born in 1958 and living in Domaniów, Poland.   In May 1994, the applicant was charged and detained on remand for drug smuggling. His applications for release on bail were refused. He complained about the length of his pre-trial detention, which lasted two years, two months and six days. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial). The Court found that the grounds given by the Polish courts for the applicant’s pre-trial detention did not justify holding him in custody for the whole period in question. The Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Krzak v. Poland (no. 51515/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Stanisław and Anna Krzak, are Polish nationals, both born in 1921 and living in Sławnowice, Poland.   The applicants appealed against a decision concerning the ownership rights of four plots of land. They complained that the proceedings had lasted more then five years and eight months and were still pending, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). They also complained about the refusal to bring criminal proceedings against two people for allegedly destroying their home and stealing their trees.     The Court found that the European Convention on Human Rights did not guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third parties or to have those people convicted. The applicants’ complaint concerning the refusal to bring criminal proceedings was therefore inadmissible.   The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, concerning the length of the proceedings, and awarded Mr Krzak EUR   3,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Mehdi Zana v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 26982/95)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Mehdi Zana, is a Turkish national who was born in 1940. He used to be mayor of Diyarbakır and now lives in France.   Mr Zana was prosecuted for statements he had made at a press conference at the European Parliament in October 1992 and to the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the European Parliament in December of that year. He had given an account of his personal struggle for the recognition of the rights of Kurds in Turkey and condemned the actions of the Turkish authorities in south-east Turkey, referring, among other things, to the destruction of villages and to acts of violence inflicted on the Kurdish population.   The Ankara National Security Court, which found that those comments attempted to show that a Kurdish nation existed separately from the Turkish nation, convicted him of disseminating separatist propaganda and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment among other things. The sentence was reduced to two years when the National Security Court re-examined the case in 1995, whereupon Mr Zana, who had been arrested and imprisoned in 1994, was released.   The applicant alleged that his criminal conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings in the National Security Court on account of the presence of a military judge and the failure to summon him to appear before the court.   The Court noted that the applicant’s conviction amounted to interference with his right to freedom of expression. That interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting territorial integrity. On the question of whether the interference had been proportionate to the aims pursued, the Court noted that the content and terms of the applicant’s comments had taken the form of a political speech. He had been convicted not for incitement to violence, but for disseminating separatist propaganda. The Court took the view that, even supposing that this could be deemed to be a relevant consideration, it was insufficient in itself to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.   The Court observed that the applicant, as an actor in Turkish political life, had intended to discuss the fate of a sector of the population before the European Parliament and noted the severity of the sentence that had been imposed. In those circumstances, it considered that Mr   Zana’s conviction was disproportionate and had therefore not been “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court accordingly concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   With regard to the complaint about the lack of independence and impartiality of the National Security Court, the Court reiterated that a civilian standing trial for offences under the Criminal Code before a national security court composed, among other things, of a military judge, among others, had a legitimate reason to fear that the court lacked independence and impartiality. The Court accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1. In the light of that conclusion, it considered that there was no need to examine the applicant’s other complaint of unfairness of the proceedings.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded Mr Zana EUR   7,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (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. [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.