003-2049894-2177111

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   3.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which is 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.     Naranjo Hurtado v. Italy (application no. 16508/04) Violation of Article 5 § 4 Cecilia Maria Naranjo Hurtado is a Colombian national who was born in 1967 and lives in La Spezia (Italy).   In 2001 the applicant was prosecuted for criminal conspiracy and drug trafficking. She was arrested and placed in detention pending trial in July 2003. She lodged an application for release, which was rejected. On 2 December 2003, 33 days after she had appealed against that decision, the investigating judge dismissed her appeal.   The applicant submitted that the Italian courts had not decided “speedily” on the lawfulness of her detention. She relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant 2,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,027.20 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Lewandowski v. Poland (no. 29437/02) Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Artur Lewandowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1970. He is currently detained in Wołów Detention Centre (Poland).   The case concerned Mr Lewandowski’s complaint about the length of his detention on remand on suspicion of robbery for which he was arrested in March 2000 and, ultimately, convicted in January 2006 and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The proceedings are currently pending before the Supreme Court.   He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court was not satisfied that the reasons given to justify the applicant’s detention for four years and over three months were “relevant” and “sufficient”, and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. Mr Lewandowski was awarded EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Tan v. Turkey (no. 9460/03) Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Erdal Tan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975. He is currently in the Sincan F-type prison in Turkey, where he is serving a sentence of 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for membership of an illegal organisation.   In July 2002 the applicant wrote to the daily newspaper Radikal criticising the conditions of detention in F-type prisons, which he said were contrary to human dignity. The prison disciplinary board refused to forward the letter on the ground that it “would stir up trouble”. The applicant’s appeals against that decision were unsuccessful.   The applicant complained about the interception of his correspondence and the refusal to send it on. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court considered that sections 144 and 147 of Regulation no. 647 on prison management and the execution of sentences did not indicate with sufficient clarity the scope and arrangements for exercise of the authorities’ discretion in the monitoring of inmates’ correspondence. It also observed that the way the discretion was exercised in practice did not appear to remedy the deficiency.   Accordingly, the Court took the view that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence had not been “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. It awarded the applicant 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:   Violation of Article 8 Della Vecchia v. Italy (application no 26570/04)  Violation of Article 13      Violation of Article 8  Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Di Ieso v. Italy (no. 10347/02) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Pietro Della Vecchia and Giuliano Di Ieso, are Italian nationals who were born in 1966 and 1936. They live in Nusco and Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy), respectively. Mr Della Vecchia was declared bankrupt in 1994 and Mr Di Ieso in 1979.   The applicants contended that the restrictions imposed on them during the bankruptcy proceedings amounted to a violation of their rights under the Convention. Both relied on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence). In addition, Mr Della Vecchia relied in particular on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Mr Di Ieso on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 8. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 in the case of Della Vecchia and a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the Di Ieso case. The Court ruled that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non‑pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Della Vecchia and awarded him EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. It awarded Mr Di Ieso EUR 49,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular of the excessive length of (non‑criminal) proceedings.  Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Krempa-Czuchryta v. Poland (no. 11184/03 Rafińska v. Poland (no. 13146/02) Wilusz v. Poland (no. 1363/02)     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.