EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
3.2.2009
Press release issued by the Registrar
Chamber judgments concerningAlbania, Belgium, Poland, Romania, Turkey and the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23 Chamber judgments, none of which are final[1].
Repetitive cases[2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Dauti v. Albania (application no. 19206/05)
The applicant, Ramiz Dauti, is an Albanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Tirana (Albania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Dauti alleged that he had not been able to challenge before the domestic courts decisions given by administrative bodies concerning incapacity benefits. The European Court of Human Rights found in particular that the Medical Examination Appeals Commission on Capacity for Work had not constituted an “independent and impartial tribunal” and that its decisions, at the relevant time, could not be challenged before a domestic court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further held that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 and awarded him 6,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)
No violation of Article 6 § 1
Kupiec v. Poland (no. 16828/02)
The applicant, Michaeł Kupiec, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Krakóv (Poland). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), Mr Kupiec complained about the excessive court fees requested from him in proceedings in which he wished to sue three of his University professors. The Court noted that the fee Mr Kupiec had been required to pay, and which represented a fraction of the amount he sought as compensation, had been significantly reduced by the domestic court. The Court found that the applicant’s claim had been grossly exaggerated and that, if he had claimed less in compensation, he would have had to pay a smaller fee. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Jones v. Romania (no. 36478/02)
The applicant, Daniel Jones, is a German national who was born in 1932 and lives in Frankfurt am Main (Germany). He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that the actions of the administrative authorities had prevented him from securing the return of his property. The Court considered that it was the authorities’ duty to clarify the status of the building in question and to ensure that the statutory procedure for the restitution of nationalised property was observed. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the excessive burden borne by Mr Jones, who had been deprived of his property and of any compensation, and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)
L.Z. v. Romania (no. 22383/03)
The applicant, L.Z., is a Romanian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Ploiesti (Romania). He complained, relying mainly on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), that there had been no effective investigation into his allegation that he was raped in prison by other inmates. The Court considered that despite the difficult nature of the investigation, the Romanian authorities had been under an obligation to conduct a prompt and thorough medical examination in order to be able to confirm or refute the applicant’s serious allegations. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the inadequacy of the investigation by the Romanian authorities and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
No violation of Article 10
Marin v. Romania (no. 30699/02)
The applicant, Emilia Marilena Marin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Alexandria (Romania). In 1998, while employed as a teacher, she sent a letter to the Minister for Education in which she criticised an inspector. The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), about the criminal proceedings which the inspector had brought against her for defamation. She also alleged, under Article 10 (freedom of expression), that her letter had been published in the magazine Şcoala românească without her permission. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the applicant had been convicted of insulting behaviour without having been given the opportunity to present her defence on this new charge, and no violation of Article 10, on the ground that the authorities’ interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been legitimate. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Voiculescu v. Romania (no. 5325/03)
The applicant, Anca Carmen Voiculescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Braşov (Romania). Relying on Article 2 (right to life), she complained that the investigation into the circumstances in which her mother had died after being run over by a poorly maintained military vehicle had not been effective. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the length of the investigation (more than seven years), the repeated referrals of the case to different authorities and the lack of impartiality of the military prosecutor in the judicial investigation. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1
Amutgan v. Turkey (no. 5138/04)
Çimen v. Turkey (no. 19582/02)
Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4
Şükran Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 4661/02)
The applicants are three Turkish nationals: Nusret Amutgan who was born in 1970 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Gaziantep H-type Prison; Ali Çimen who was born in 1969 and lives in Izmir; and, Şükran Yıldız who was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), all the applicants complained that they had been denied access to a lawyer when taken into police custody on suspicion of being involved in illegal armed organisations. Ali Çimen further complained about the unfairness of the proceedings in his case before the Court of Cassation, in breach of Article 6 § 1. Şükran Yıldız further complained that the length of her detention on remand had been excessive and that she had had no effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of that detention on remand, in breach of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security). The Court held unanimously that in all three cases there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 on account of the applicants not having had access to a lawyer while in police custody. The Court found a further violation of Article 6 § 1 in the case of Çimen in respect of the non-communication to the applicant of the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. In the case of Şükran Yıldız the Court, having noted that the applicant had spent over 4 years and 3 month in pre-trial detention and had been a minor at the time, found a violation of Article 5 § 3. It also held that Ms Yildiz had not been able to challenge effectively the lawfulness of her pre-trial detention, in violation of Article 5 § 4. The Court awarded Mr Amutgan EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, and Ms Yildiz EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. Mr Çimen failed to submit his claims for just satisfaction within the prescribed time-limit. Nevertheless, the Court considered that the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant should he so request. (The judgments are available only in English.)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
Violation of Article 13
Ayla Özcan v. Turkey (no. 36526/04)
The applicant, Ayla Özcan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Istanbul. She complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the length of the criminal proceedings against her for forgery of official documents. She also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings (almost five years) and the fact that the Turkish legal system did not afford the applicant any effective means of complaining about their length. It awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 to cover all heads of damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c)
Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5
İpek and Others v. Turkey (nos. 17019/02 and 30070/02)
The applicants, Çetin İpek, Murat Özpamuk and Seyithan Demirel, are Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). They were born in 1985; at the time of the events they were 16 years old. In December 2001 the applicants were arrested at Mr Özpamuk’s house and taken into police custody in order to establish whether they had any link with an illegal armed organisation, the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). They were released pending trial in February 2002. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained in particular about the unlawfulness of their arrest and the excessive length of their detention in police custody. The Court first held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) concerning Mr Özpamuk, but that there had been a violation of that provision in respect of Mr İpek and Mr Demirel, who, the Court considered, had been arrested mainly because they happened to be at Mr Özpamuk’s house at the time it had been searched. The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in respect of all three applicants, who were minors at the time, on account of their detention in police custody for more than three days, in the absence of any safeguards against possible arbitrary acts by State authorities. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of a domestic remedy by which the applicants could have challenged the lawfulness of their detention, and a further violation of Article 5 § 5 concerning the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the breach of their rights under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded Mr İpek and Mr Demirel EUR 1,500, each, and EUR 1,000 to Mr Özpamuk. The applicants were awarded EUR 2,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Repetitive cases
The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Hamzaraj v. Albania (no. 45264/04)
Nuri v. Albania (no. 12306/04)
The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the non-enforcement of Commission decisions awarding the applicants compensation.
Just satisfaction
Ilutiu v. Romania (no. 18898/02)
The Court held in a judgment of 6 December 2007 that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the sale by the State of the applicant’s property to a third party, combined with the failure to grant her effective compensation for nine years. At the time of the judgment the Court found that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In the judgment delivered today the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and held that if the State did not return her flat to her it would have to pay her EUR 50,000 in respect of pecuniary damage.
Kalyoncu v. Turkey (no. 41220/07)
The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the three applicants’ complaint that the authorities had not paid them compensation for having deprived them of their land which, according to domestic law, could not be subject to private property.
Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Booth v. the United Kingdom (no. 27961/02)
Mitchard v. the United Kingdom (no. 42711/02)
Murray v. the United Kingdom (no. 28045/02)
Turner v. the United Kingdom (no. 42709/02)
Twomey v. the United Kingdom (no. 28095/02)
The Court found the above violation in these five cases concerning the applicants’ complaints that, as widowers, they had been refused widows’ benefits, notably the Widow’s Payment in the case of Booth and the Widow’s Mother’s Allowance in respect of the other 4 cases.
Length-of-proceedings cases
In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.
Leonardi v. Belgium (no. 35327/05)
Poelmans v. Belgium (no. 44807/06)
Saçlı and Others v. Turkey (no. 42710/04)
***
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).
Press contacts
Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04)Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30)Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70)Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)
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.
[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] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.
