003-1691790-1773254

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   13.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Moldova, Poland, Slovakia and Turkey   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 also be found at the end of the press release.     Lehtonen v. Finland (application no 11704/03) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13   The applicant, Ari Lehtonen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Muurla (Finland).   On 7 August 1992 the police searched the applicant’s home and seized his assets. He was suspected of serious fraud in connection with his activities at the bank where he was previously employed. A hearing began in Salo District Court on 7 March 1995 and on 24 March 2000 he was convicted of four counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced to a suspended term of one year and ten months’ imprisonment and a fine. In March 2002 Turku Court of Appeal added a fifth count of serious fraud and increased the sentence to four years and six months of unconditional imprisonment and a loss of military rank. The Supreme Court refused him leave to appeal on 30 October 2002.   The applicant complained, in particular, about the length of the proceedings under Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings in question had lasted over ten years and two months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. The applicant’s other complaints were declared inadmissible. He was awarded 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Istrate v. Moldova (no. 53773/00) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicant, Andrei Istrate, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinǎu. He is a pensioner.   On 21 July 1998 the applicant was awarded compensation against C. in civil proceedings before Râşcani District Court. The judgment became enforceable on 5 August 1998. On an unspecified date in 2000 the judgment was partially enforced.   In July 2002, after the European Court of Human Rights communicated the applicant’s application concerning non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 July 1998, the Government informed the Court that, on 11 June 2002, Chişinău Regional Court had examined an appeal allegedly lodged by C. on 10 December 1998 and had quashed the judgment of 21 July 1998. C. had been granted a stay of the enforcement proceedings on 4 June 2002. According to the applicant he only learned of those events from the Government’s observations when they were sent to him by the Court.   The applicant complained about the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 21 July 1998 awarding him compensation and the subsequent quashing of that judgment following the examination of an appeal which he considered to be bogus. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found that, from the time when the judgment was partially enforced until June 2002, when C. had been granted a stay of the enforcement proceedings, the Moldovan authorities did not take adequate measures to enforce the judgment of 21 July 1998 which was enforceable throughout that time in accordance with Moldovan law. That non-enforcement together with the subsequent quashing of the judgment meant that the applicant was deprived of most of the benefits of a judgment which was enforceable for a period of some four years in the same way as a final judgment. The quashing took place in the applicant’s absence in proceedings following C.’s appeal which, according to the Government, was lodged on 10 December 1998 but which appears to have been received by Râşcani District Court only on 15 May 2002, after the case was communicated to the Government. Moreover, the Government failed to show that the applicant was duly informed of the hearing of 11 June 2002. Having regard to the circumstances and making an overall assessment of the proceedings, the Court concluded that they failed to meet the requirement of a fair trial and held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court also found that, by failing to take the necessary steps to have the judgment of 21 July 1998 enforced, the national authorities prevented the applicant from enjoying or using the money he was due and that the situation was perpetuated by the quashing of that judgment. Having regard to its findings concerning Article 6, the Court considered that the Moldovan authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s interests and the other interests involved and held, by six votes to one, that there had also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The applicant was awarded EUR 258 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Múčková v. Slovakia (no. 21302/02) Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) and (length)   Violation of Article 13   The applicant, Helena Múčková, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Bratislava.   In 1989 the applicant’s daughter was seriously injured in a road traffic accident caused by an employee of the Ministry of the Interior.   The applicant filed a claim for damages with the Ministry of Justice on 18 June 1992 claiming compensation from the Ministry under the 1969 State Liability Act. She also claimed protection of her personal rights and sought compensation for non pecuniary damage. Her claim for damages was dismissed by Bratislava District Court and her appeals against the decision were unsuccessful. On 29 October 2001 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings.   The applicant’s claim relating to the protection of her personal rights and compensation was dealt with in a separate set of proceedings which began in 19 September 1996. In July 1997 the District Court asked the applicant to pay a court fee of SKK 72,000. Her request for exemption on the grounds of hardship was refused. While accepting that the applicant was indigent, the court found that her action was devoid of any prospect of success, without giving any specific reasons for its conclusions. The Regional Court upheld that decision on 30 March 2001.   The applicant complained of the length and lack of fairness of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the decision on her request for exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee was decisive for the question whether or not the courts would determine the merits of her claim. It further found that, since the concept of lack of prospects of success of an action, as defined in domestic law, involved an assessment of questions of fact, the District Court and the Regional Court were required to give more detailed reasons for their conclusions. Accordingly the Court found that the applicant had been denied the right to a fair hearing and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court further considered that the length of both sets of proceedings which lasted over nine years and four months for the claim for damages and over eight years and nine months for the claim for protection of the applicant’s personal rights was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had also been a breach of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   The Court noted that the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claims ended in decisions given in the course of 2001. At that time the applicant had no effective remedy at her disposal in respect of her complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings. In those circumstances, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 in respect of the complaint under Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded the applicant 8,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Karakaş v. Turkey (no. 76991/01) Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Hüseyin Karakaş is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Bartın (Turkey).   As part of an operation carried out against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), a terrorist organisation proscribed under Turkish law, the applicant was arrested on 10 April 1996 in possession of a false identity document. Explosives were subsequently seized at his place of work and, while he was in police custody, he admitted being a member of the PKK. Mr Karakaş was placed in pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings were instituted against him for being a member of an illegal organisation and engaging in separatist activity.   On 30 May 2001 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. His conviction was quashed on 24 January 2002 and remitted to the State Security Court for a fresh examination. On 25 October 2004 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment. That judgment was also quashed on 28 June 2005 and the case is currently pending before Istanbul Assize Court.   The applicant, who is still in detention, made a number of unsuccessful applications for release.   Relying on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   The Court noted that the applicant had now spent eight years and nine months in pre-trial detention. For the purposes of keeping him in detention, the Turkish courts had used an almost identical, not to say stereotyped reasoning, referring to the nature of the crime with which he had been charged, the state of the evidence and the contents of the file. On four occasions they had even failed to give reasons for their decisions. In the Court’s view, the grounds relied on did not justify keeping the applicant in detention for such a long period. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Furthermore, the Court noted that the proceedings complained of had lasted more than ten years and one month to date. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it held that the proceedings were excessively long and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded, unanimously, that here had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Bogulak v. Poland (no. 33866/96) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4   The applicant, Jóseph Bogulak, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Wrocław (Poland).   On 15 March 1996 the applicant was detained by a prosecutor on charges of tax fraud and obstructing the conduct of the criminal proceedings. After unsuccessfully lodging several appeals and applications for release, the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor ordered his release on bail on 7 August 1996. The applicant’s appeals and applications for release were discussed in closed session. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was allowed to take part.   The applicant alleged that he had been deprived of liberty by a decision of a public prosecutor who was not a “judge or an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” and that in the proceedings concerning his detention he had not been allowed to attend the relevant court sessions. He relied on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court recalled that under Polish legislation in force at the material time, a prosecutor could be regarded as a “judicial officer” endowed with attributes of “independence” and “impartiality” because the prosecution authorities not only belonged to the executive branch of the State but also concurrently performed investigative and prosecution functions in criminal proceedings and were a party to such proceedings. Consequently, it concluded that the applicant’s right to be brought “before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” had not been respected and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court also found that the impossibility for a detainee to attend a court hearing dealing with his detention, to respond to the prosecutor’s submissions and to challenge – either himself or through his lawyer – grounds for his continued detention was in violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Başboğa v. Turkey (no. 64277/01) Kutal and Uğraş v. Turkey (no. 61648/00) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   The applicants are Turkish nationals. Mehmet Ata Başboğa was born in 1966 and was detained in Aydın Prison when he lodged his application before the Court. Firet Kutal and Volkan Uğraş were both born in 1982 and were detained in Muş Prison and Buca Prison (Turkey) respectively when they lodged their applications.   In 1998 Mr Başboğa was sentenced by a state security court to five years’ imprisonment for his membership of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. Mr Kutal and Mr Uğraş were sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment in 1999 for assisting that organisation.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants alleged, in particular, that their case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal because of the presence of a military judge in the composition of state security courts.   The Court held unanimously in those two cases that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court. Regarding the other complaints based on the unfairness of the proceedings in the case of Kutal and Uğraş, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction and held, accordingly, that it was unnecessary to examine the other complaints.   The Court concluded that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. Under the head of costs and expenses, it awarded EUR 1,000 to Mr Başboğa and EUR 1,500 jointly to Mr Kutal and Mr Uğraş. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Çağlar and Others v. Turkey (no. 57647/00) Dolgun v. Turkey (no. 67255/01) Ergün v. Turkey (no. 45807/99) Fatma Bakır v. Turkey (no. 76603/01) Kara Midilli v. Turkey (no. 76498/01) Kavraroğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 76698/01) Mustafa Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 76719/01) Okur v. Turkey (no. 76567/01) Titiz and Others v. Turkey (no. 67144/01) Topakogöz v. Turkey (no. 76481/01) Tulumbacı and Others v. Turkey (no. 76571/01) Yusuf Sarı v. Turkey (no. 76797/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, all complained of delays in payment of additional compensation for expropriation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Other than in the case of Ergün v. Turkey, the applicants also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court concluded unanimously in each case that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and took the view that it was not necessary to consider separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It held that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and in respect of pecuniary damage and costs and expenses awarded them the total amounts set out below, expressed in euros. (The judgments are available only in French, except for Titiz and Others v. Turkey and Dolgun v. Turkey which are available only in English.)       Pecuniary damage Costs and  expenses   Çağlar and Others v. Turkey (no. 57647/00)   36,772   1,000 Dolgun v. Turkey (no. 67255/01) 1,310 Ergün v. Turkey (no. 45807/99) 45,000 1,000 Fatma Bakır v. Turkey (no. 76603/01) 4,334 1,000 Kara Midilli v. Turkey (no. 76498/01) 43,665 1,000 Kavraroğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 76698/01) 13,140 1,000 Mustafa Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 76719/01) 13,406 1,000 Okur v. Turkey (no. 76567/01) 8,997 1,000 Titiz and Others v. Turkey (no. 67144/01) 1,280 Topakogöz v. Turkey (no. 76481/01) 2,344 1,000 Tulumbacı and Others v. Turkey (no. 76571/01) 2,735 1,000 Yusuf Sarı v. Turkey (no. 76797/01) 2,794 1,000       Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Gažíková v. Slovakia (no. 66083/01)  Kvasnová v. Slovakia (no. 67039/01) Magura v. Slovakia (no. 44068/02) Sika v. Slovakia (no. 2132/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)     ***   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   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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 European Convention on Human Rights.