003-2383530-2574325

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   10.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 Chamber judgments, of which only Bulgakova v. Russia is 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 (length) Depauw v. Belgium (application no. 2115/04) The applicant, Jean Depauw, is a Belgian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Visé (Belgium).   Having been an employee and a director of a company, S., he was dismissed in July 1981 for serious misconduct. In March 1984 he was awarded compensation for unfair dismissal but was unable to obtain the sum from the company as it had gone bankrupt. In pursuing his claim he became involved, either directly or indirectly, in a series of civil and criminal proceedings, the last of which ended in 2005. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 50,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and EUR 2,700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Just satisfaction Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05) The applicant, Nicolae Boicenco, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1961 and lives in Ialovni (Moldova).   The case concerned Mr Boicenco’s complaint about ill-treatment in police custody, the authorities’ inadequate investigation into the incident and the lack of adequate medical care during his detention. In a judgment of 11 July 2006, the Court held that there had been violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 34 (right of individual petition). Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr Boicenco EUR 40,000 for non-pecuniary damage but considered that the question of pecuniary damage was not ready for decision.   In its judgment today, although presented with new medical evidence from independent sources, the Court came to the same conclusion as in its principal judgment, that is to say that it was unable to establish a direct causal link between Mr Boicenco’s ill-treatment and his subsequent neurological and psychiatric state. The Court therefore dismissed the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Struck out Duca v. Moldova (no. 1579/02) The applicant, Eugenia Duca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău.   The case concerned Ms Duca’s complaint that prison authorities interfered with her correspondence with her lawyers during her detention on remand on charges of theft and forgery. She relied on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   As Ms Duca had informed the Court that she had decided not to pursue her complaint because, in particular, she had received sufficient compensation from the domestic courts, it decided to strike the application out of its list of cases. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Istrate v. Moldova (No. 2) (no. 28790/03) The applicant, Andrei Istrate, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău. He is a pensioner.   The case concerned Mr Istrate’s complaint about the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to examine his appeal on points of law with regard to a compensation claim because he had not paid the court fees. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Istrate EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 No violation of Article 5 § 2 Galliani v. Romania (no. 69273/01) The applicant, Paola Galliani, is an Italian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Savona (Italy).   On 19 January 1998 Ms Galliani entered Romania with a tourist visa which was valid until 2 February 1998. She was repatriated to Italy on 7 May 2000. The case concerned her complaint that, even though no expulsion proceedings had been brought against her at the time, she was unlawfully arrested and placed in custody from 4 to 7 May 2000. She also complained that she was not informed of the reasons for her arrest or given access to a court which would examine its lawfulness. She relied on Article 5 §§ 1 (f), 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 and that that finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage Ms Galliani had sustained. The Court further held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 2 and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 Tase v. Romania (no. 29761/02) The applicant, Cristian Tase, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Ploieşti (Romania).   Mr Tase was arrested in June 2002 on charges of theft. He was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to a one-year suspended sentence. The case concerned his complaint about the unlawfulness of his arrest and in particular that he was arrested without concrete reasons. He further complained that, as he was ultimately convicted, he could not obtain compensation for his pre-trial detention. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 and awarded Mr Tase EUR 500 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Temeşan v. Romania (no. 36293/02) The applicant, Răzvan Liviu Temaşan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest.   The case concerned Mr Temaşan’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention pending trial and the length of criminal proceedings against him for, in particular, abuse of authority. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 and Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Temaşan EUR 1,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Just satisfaction Struck out Bulgakova v. Russia (no. 69524/01) The applicant, Mayya Filippovna Bulgakova, is a Russian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Novosibirsk (Russia).   The case concerned Ms Bulgakova’s complaint that a final and binding judgment in her favour had been reviewed as a result of new legislation. In its judgment of 18 January 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and considered that Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   The Court took note of statements by the Government and the applicant in which it was agreed that Ms Bulgakova would receive EUR 1,500. It accordingly decided to strike the case out of its list of cases. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Çengelli and Eryılmaz v. Turkey (no. 287/03) The applicants, Ferit Çengelli and Süleyman Eryılmaz, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1955 and 1957 respectively and live in Istanbul.   The applicants were arrested in March 1981 on charges of membership of the Dev-Yol, an illegal organisation. The proceedings against Mr Çengelli were terminated in June 2001 on the ground that the statutory time-limit had expired. They had lasted more than 20 years. The proceedings against Mr Eryılmaz have so far lasted 27 years and are apparently still pending. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings against them. They 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 6 § 1 and awarded EUR 10,800 to Ferit Çengelli and EUR 19,200 to Süleyman Eryılmaz in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ercüment Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 46048/06) The applicant, Ercüment Yıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977.   In November 1996 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), considered an illegal armed organisation. He was charged, in December 1996, with fostering territorial separatism and participating in related terrorist activities as a leading member of the organisation in question. According to the material in the file, the criminal proceedings against him are still pending. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the proceedings against him, and about the fact that he was not brought before a judge promptly after his arrest.   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 12,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,129 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Feti Ateş v. Turkey (no. 28827/04) The applicant, Feti Ateş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Edirne (Turkey).   He was arrested on suspicion of belonging to an armed group and placed in pre-trial detention in September 1996. Even though he was released in March 2006, the proceedings against him are still pending. He complained about the length of his pre-trial detention and relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kama v. Turkey (no. 24917/04) The applicant, Bayram Kama, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Tekirdağ (Turkey).   In February 1993 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention for various acts of terrorism. He was released in October 2006. The criminal proceedings against him are apparently still pending. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), among other provisions, he complained about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the proceedings against him.   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Bortesi and Others v. Italy (no. 71399/01) The Court unanimously found the above violations in this case concerning the inadequacy of the expropriation compensation paid to the applicants.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mehmet Selçuk v. Turkey (no. 13090/04) In this case the Court unanimously found a violation of the above article on account of the delay in enforcing a final judgment in the applicant’s favour.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ömer Köseoğlu v. Turkey (no. 36594/04) Yalvaç v. Turkey v. (no. 21502/04) In these two cases the Court found the above violation on account of the failure to hold a public hearing during consideration of the applicants’ cases by the Turkish courts.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Koronczai v. Hungary (no. 7680/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro v. Portugal (no. 33729/06) Cvetković v. Serbia (no. 17271/04)     ***   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 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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.