003-2396047-2593892

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   24.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Lithuania, Romania and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which are final[1].   Repetitive cases[2], with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     No violation of Article 6 § 1 Milinienė v. Lithuania (application no. 74355/01) The applicant, Eglė Milinienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Vilnius. She used to be a judge.   In October 1998 Ms Milinienė was apprehended on charges of accepting a bribe in return for a favourable outcome in civil proceedings with regard to a claim to annul the auction of a property. She was ultimately convicted of that charge, sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and banned from service for five years. The case concerned, in particular, Ms Milinienė’s complaint that she was incited to accept the bribe by the authorities. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Just satisfaction Apostolidi and Others v. Turkey (no. 45628/99) The applicants, Ekaterini Apostolidi, Emilia Gusi, Despina Frangaki, Iordanis Apostolidis and Iordanis-Iordani Apostolidis are Greek nationals.   In a judgment of 27 March 2007 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) because of the annulment of the applicants’ inheritance certificate, and of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) because of the excessive length of the proceedings before the domestic courts. It declared that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In the judgment it pronounced today the Court held unanimously that the Turkish authorities had to restore the applicants’ respective shares in an apartment and have the property re-registered in their names in the land register, within three months of the date on which this judgment becomes final. Failing that, it awards the applicants jointly EUR 20,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. It also awards the applicants jointly EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Atmaca, Çamdeviren and Yazır v. Turkey (nos. 28299/02, 28300/02 and 28301/02) The applicants, Bülent Atmaca, Nadir Çamdeviren and Önder Yazır, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1977 and 1979 respectively and live in Tunceli (Turkey).   Suspected of belonging to the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation, the applicants were arrested and remanded in custody in November 2001. In September 2002 they were found guilty and sentenced to 16 years and three months’ imprisonment. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained that they had not been brought before a judge immediately after their arrest.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Baş v. Turkey (no. 49548/99) The applicant, Sefine Baş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Giresun (Turkey).   The case concerned several sets of administrative proceedings brought by the applicant since 1983 because she was denied a widow’s pension. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. As regards pecuniary damage, it declared that the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 3 No violation of Article 5 Violation of Article 10 Foka v. Turkey (no. 28940/95) The applicant, Eleni Foka, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1947 and lives in Nicosia. She is a retired school teacher. At the relevant time she lived and worked in the village Ayia Triada in the Karpas region of northern Cyprus.   The case concerned Ms Foka’s allegation that, on her way back to Ayia Triada in January 1995 from southern Cyprus where she had spent the Christmas holidays with her family, she was arrested and ill-treated by Turkish-Cypriot customs officers at the Ledra Palace checkpoint. She also alleged that her bag was searched and its contents (notably cassettes, books, a diary and a map) were confiscated and that she was persecuted because of her ethnic origin, religious beliefs and her opposition to the Turkish military occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. She relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 10 (freedom of expression), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violations of Articles 3 or 5, and that there had been a violation of Article 10. The Court further held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Articles 8, 9 and 14. Ms Foka was awarded EUR 300 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Özkartal v. Turkey (no. 4287/04) The applicant, Enver Özkartal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969.   At the time when the application was lodged he was serving a life sentence in Midyat prison. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained of the prison authorities’ interception of and failure to forward his correspondence.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. (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 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cone v. Romania (no. 35935/02) The Court found the above violations concerning the authorities’ failure to execute a judgment in the applicant’s favour.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Balaban v. Turkey (no. 4236/03) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint about the lack of an oral hearing before the Assize Court in compensation proceedings.     ***   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.