003-2268189-2430897

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   19.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Lithuania and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which is final.[1]   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Articles 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14 Kuolelis, Bartoševičius and Burokevičius v. Lithuania (application no. 74357/01) The applicants, Juozas Kuolelis, Leonas Bartoševičius and Mykolas Burokevičius are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1930, 1928 and 1927, respectively. At the time of lodging their applications, Mr Bartoševičius was living in Vilnius and MrKuolelis and Mr Burokevičius were detained in Rasų Prison (Vilnius).   All the applicants were senior executives of the Lithuanian branch of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and were convicted in August 1999 for participating in subversive, anti-state activities. Their trial was popularly known as the “January 13th case” in reference to a clash between the Soviet army and Lithuanian civilians, from 12 to 13 January 1991, in which 13 Lithuanians died and over a thousand were injured.   The case concerned, in particular, the applicants’ allegations that they were prosecuted and convicted for offences which could not be foreseen under domestic or international law as, at the relevant time, Lithuania had not yet been recognised as an independent State. They also complained about the excessive length of the proceedings against them. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), 7 (no punishment without law), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the time taken to deal with the case had not been unreasonable in the circumstances viewed as a whole, and therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court also found, in particular, that the applicants had been convicted for crimes which were sufficiently clear and foreseeable under the laws of the re-established Republic of Lithuania. The consequences of failure to comply with those laws were adequately predictable, not only with the assistance of legal advice, but also as a matter of common sense. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 7.   Concerning the applicants’ complaints under Articles 9, 10 and 11, the Court found that even if there had been an interference with the applicants’ rights, that interference was prescribed by law. As regards the legitimacy of the aims of such an interference and the proportionality of the measures taken in relation to those aims, the Court considered that the case, viewed as a whole, disclosed no indication of any violation. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 9, 10 and 11.   Moreover, the Court considered that the applicants had not been the victim of any unjustified difference in treatment which could amount to discrimination, and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 Hamşioğlu v. Turkey (no. 2036/04) The applicant, Doğan Hamşioğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960.   The case concerns in particular the applicant’s late release despite an order to release him having been issued. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that there was nothing to suggest that the Turkish authorities had taken the measures necessary to expedite communication of the applicant’s file to the prosecutor responsible for implementing the release order. Neither had the authorities accelerated arrangements for the arrival of a relative of the applicant, despite the fact that his release had been pronounced several days earlier, whereas a circular of the Turkish Ministry of Justice stipulated that a detainee had to be released in the presence of a relative. Consequently the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1. It also considered that no remedy had been available to the applicant by which to obtain compensation for his detention and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5. The Court awarded Mr Hamşioğlu 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Yalçın v. Turkey (no. 15041/03) The applicant, Doğan Yalçın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976. He is currently in Batman Prison (Turkey).   Suspected of belonging to the illegal organisation PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), Mr Yalçın was arrested and remanded in police custody in September 1996. He was placed in pre-trial detention in October 1996, before finally being sentenced in December 2003 to the death penalty commuted to life imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Mr Yalçın complained of the length of his pre-trial detention and of the lack of a remedy to challenge his detention and obtain his release. He also complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3, noting in particular that the applicant had spent approximately six years and six months in pre-trial detention.  It also observed that the applicant had applied for conditional release on a number of occasions during the 41 hearings before the National Security Court which tried him, and had had all his applications dismissed. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. It noted, further, that the proceedings in question had lasted approximately seven years and seven months and held that this was an excessive length of time. It thus concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Yalçın EUR 5,100 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is 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) Serino v. Italy (no. 679/03) Sürmelioğlu v. Turkey (no. 17940/03)   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.