CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s312583D5 { width:74.12pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s34E1C26E { width:272.89pt; display:inline-block } .sCBA8B666 { width:122.13pt; display:inline-block } .s702936EF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:252pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s2AF5138B { width:114.14pt; display:inline-block } .s60AAF2ED { width:102.78pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sF78B0E23 { width:62.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   179 8.4.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, of which only the Sadak v. Turkey judgment is final. [1]     Weh v. Austria (application no. 38544/97)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Ludwig Weh, is an Austrian national, born in 1952 and living in Bregenz.   On 21 March 1995 an anonymous order was served on him for 800 Austrian schillings (ATS) on the ground that, on 5   March   1995 the driver of a car registered in his name had exceeded the speed limit.   Mr Weh did not comply with the anonymous order which, consequently, became invalid.   Subsequently, Bregenz District Authority opened criminal proceedings for exceeding the speed limit against unknown offenders and ordered the applicant as the registered car owner, under section 103 §   2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to disclose who had been driving his car.   The information provided by the applicant being incomplete, he was fined, under the Motor Vehicles Act to pay a fine of ATS 900 (with 54 hours’ imprisonment in default) for submitting inaccurate information. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. However, he was not prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit.   Mr Weh complained that the obligation to divulge the name of the driver of his car under the Motor Vehicles Act violated his right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the heart of the applicant’s complaint was that he was punished for failure to give information which might have incriminated him in the context of criminal proceedings for speeding. However, at no time were those proceedings conducted against him. Neither could it be said that they were anticipated.   He was punished for giving inaccurate information, as he had failed to indicate the driver’s complete address. Neither in the domestic proceedings nor before the European Court of Human Rights did he ever state that he had been the driver of the car at the time of the offence.   The link between the applicant’s obligation under section 103 § 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act to name the driver of his car and possible criminal proceedings for speeding against him remained remote and hypothetical. Without a sufficiently concrete link with those criminal proceedings, the use of compulsory powers (i.e. the imposition of a fine) to obtain information did not raise an issue concerning the applicant’s right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination. The European Court of Human Rights therefore held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, and 5 Belchev v. Bulgaria (no. 39270/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Anton Belchev, is a Bulgarian national, born in 1957 and living in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.   He was charged in 1996 with inciting and abetting a bank manager to breach his professional duty. Mr Belchev complained about his detention on remand, which lasted four months and 14 days, and the length of criminal proceedings against him which, to date, have lasted more than seven years. He relied on Articles 5 §§ 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of Article 5 § 3, because neither the investigator or the prosecutor were sufficiently independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 5 § 3, in view of the practical role they played in the prosecution and their potential participation as a party to the criminal proceedings.     The Court further held, unanimously, that the authorities failed to justify the applicant’s remand in custody for the period of four months and 14 days, in violation of Article 5 § 3, and that Bulgarian law did not afford the applicant an enforceable right to compensation, in violation of Article 5 § 5. The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Hamanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44062/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Nikolai Tomov Hamanov, is a Bulgarian national, born in 1963 and living in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.   He was charged in 1996 with breaching his professional duty. Mr Hamanov complained about his detention on remand and the length of the criminal proceedings against him which, to date, have lasted more than seven years. He relied on Articles 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that the Bulgarian authorities had failed to justify the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, in violation of Article 5 § 3. Finding that the scope and nature of the judicial review of the applicant’s detention was inadequate, the Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5, as Bulgarian law did not afford the applicant an enforceable right to compensation and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Kayıhan and Others v. Turkey (no. 42124/98) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants are 19 Turkish nationals, born between 1922 and 1972 and living in Şanlıurfa or Kırıkkale (Turkey).   In November 1994, the General Directorate of the National Water Board expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants in Hilvan, Şanlıurfa, in order to build the Atatürk Dam. The applicants complained that the compensation they received was insufficient, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court held unanimously that the case was admissible and that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the Convention. The Court also held, unanimously, that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint raised under Article 14 and awarded the applicants EUR   27,700 for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Serdar Özcan v. Turkey (no. 55427/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Serdar Özcan, is a Turkish national born in 1976. When he lodged his application, he was detained in Iskenderun prison. On 3 June 1999, Adana State Security Court sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment for having participated in the activities of an illegal armed organisation.   The Court of Cassation upheld his sentence.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of the unfairness of the proceedings against him.   He submitted that the state security court which had tried him was not an independent and impartial tribunal because it included a military judge. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the procedure before the Court of Cassation had infringed his defence rights because of the non-notification of the opinion of the Principal State Prosecutor.   The Court reiterated that a civilian having to answer charges concerning “national security” before a state security court which included a military judge had a legitimate reason to fear that the court would not be independent and impartial. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Moreover, it reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality has been established cannot under any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to those within its jurisdiction. Accordingly the Court held, unanimously, that there was no need to examine the other complaint under Article 6.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation was sufficient to remedy the non- pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.   It reiterated that when it found that an applicant had been convicted by a court which was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, in principle the most appropriate remedy was an early retrial by an independent and impartial tribunal. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 3 Sadak v. Turkey (nos. 25142/94 and 27099/95)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Selim Sadak, is a Turkish national born in 1954 and living in Ankara.   At the time of the facts alleged, he was the member for Şırnak of the Greater National Assembly and a member of the DEP political party ( Democracy Party ) . In June 1994 the Constitutional Court dissolved that party on the ground that its activities jeopardised the territorial integrity of the State.   Mr Sadak was detained in police custody on 1 July 1994, after having gone to the Prosecutor’s Office with a former member for the DEP. He spent his first five days of police custody in a cell without being questioned, then on 12 July 1994 was brought before the assessor judge of Ankara Security Court who ordered him to be remanded in custody. On 8 December 1994 the state security court sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment for belonging to an armed gang.   The applicant submitted that the length and conditions of his police custody, namely 11 days without any contact with the outside world, infringed Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Moreover, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained of not having been brought “promptly” before a judge.   The Court observed that the applicant had not been held by the police in conditions of sensory deprivation and social isolation. Although he had not had any contact with the outside world, he had been in contact with the staff of the detention centre and with other persons being held in police custody. Moreover, as he had not been questioned at all, his detention could be construed as an extended period of waiting which was not so long as to affect his personality. The Court therefore considered that his detention was not per se so serious as to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 and held, unanimously, that Article 3 had not been violated.   The Court observed that the applicant had been held in police custody for 11 days before being brought before a judge. Even assuming that the activities of which he was suspected could be linked with a terrorist threat, the Court could not accept that it was necessary to detain him for 11 days without judicial intervention. Accordingly it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 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.