003-2416105-2613105

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   8.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Poland, Romania, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 Chamber judgments, none of which are 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 5 § 1 Tokić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 12455/04) The applicants are four citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mehmed Tokić, Jusuf Alibašić, Danijel Marinić and Adis Hadžić who were born in 1934, 1971, 1966 and 1982, respectively. They live, respectively, in Lukavac, a care home in Fojnica, the psychiatric wing of Zenica Prison and Sarajevo.   Between 1999 and 2003 the applicants were charged with criminal offences: Mr Tokić with possession of an illegal weapon; Mr Alibašić with threatening behaviour; Mr Marinić with murdering his parents; and, Mr Hadžić with murder. They were all found not guilty by reason of insanity and ordered to be detained in the psychiatric wing of Zenica Prison. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the unlawfulness of their detention in that institution following the introduction of new legislation in August 2003 requiring the competent civil court to take a decision with regard to their compulsory confinement. They relied on Article 5 §§ 1 and 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 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all four applicants and that there was no need to examine separately their complaint under Article 5 § 4. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded 7,500 euros (EUR) to Mr Tokić, EUR 15,000 to Mr Alibašić, EUR 25,000 to Mr Marinić and EUR 20,000 to Mr Hadžić. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) Gigolashvili v. Georgia (no. 18145/05) The applicant, Koba Gigolashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Rustavi (Georgia).   In December 2003 Mr Gigolashvili was arrested and remanded in custody on charges of unlawful possession of drugs. He was also subsequently charged with, in particular, robbery and murder. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention from 5 May 2004. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (c) (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention between 5 May and 27 October 2004 without a valid court order. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Forgione v. Italy (no. 62471/00) The applicant, Luciana Forgione, is an Italian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Città Sant’Angelo (Italy).   In April 2002 she lodged an application in the Italian courts under the “Pinto Act” to complain of the excessive duration of administrative proceedings to which she was a party. In January 2003 the Campobasso Court of Appeal awarded her 6,300 euros in compensation for the damage sustained, but this sum was paid to her only in February 2005. The applicant 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 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Perre and Others v. Italy (no. 1905/05) The applicants, Francesco Perre, Maria Barbaro and Maria Perre, are Italian nationals who were born in 1950, 1958 and 1976, respectively, and live in Plati (Italy). The first two applicants are a married couple and the third applicant is their daughter.   In October 1997 proceedings were brought to have preventive measures applied against B.F., the father of the second applicant, who was suspected of belonging to a mafia-type criminal organisation. At the end of those proceedings the Italian courts ordered, among other things, the seizure of numerous items of property, including some belonging to the applicants. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complained that those proceedings were not held sufficiently in public.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 10 Kita v. Poland (application no. 57659/00) The applicant, Sławomir Kita, is a Polish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kazimierza Wielka (Poland) where he works as a teacher.   The case concerned Mr Kita’s complaint about civil proceedings brought against him under the Local Elections Act for distributing leaflets in the run-up to the 1998 local elections in which he criticised certain local politicians and their mismanagement of municipal funds for education. The domestic courts found that the applicant’s statements were untrue and that he had deliberately distributed the leaflets during the election to prevent politicians from being elected. He was ordered to publish an apology in a local newspaper and to pay a fine of 700 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 200), later amended to PLN 300 (approximately EUR 85). He relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court found that the applicant had not exceeded the acceptable limits of criticism in his leaflets, particularly as they had been made in the context of a political debate. The fact that the proceedings against the applicant had been civil rather than criminal and that he had only been given a minor fine, did not detract from the fact that the courts had not provided “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the interference with his freedom of expression. The Court therefore concluded that the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the relevant interests of the protection of the politicians’ rights, the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the general interest in promoting that freedom. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded Mr Kita EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,150 for costs and expenses. Given that finding, the Court further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Konrad v. Poland (no. 33374/05) Mirosław Jabłoński v. Poland (no. 33985/05) The applicants are: a German-Polish national, Thomas Konrad, who was born in 1964 and is currently detained in Sztum Remand Centre (Poland); and, Mirosław Jabłoński, a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Warsaw.   Mr Konrad was arrested in Berlin in October 2004 on suspicion of, in particular, being a member of an organised criminal group and taking hostages. The proceedings against him are still pending. Mr Jabłoński was arrested in December 2003 on suspicion of, in particular, assault resulting in death. He was convicted as charged in June 2007 and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The case is currently still pending on appeal. Both cases concerned the applicants’ complaint about the excessive length of their detention on remand. They relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that in both cases there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the applicants’ excessive length of pre-trial detention which had so far lasted almost three years and six months as regards Mr Konrad, and two years and almost two months as regards Mr Jabłoński. Each applicant was awarded EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Marchowski v. Poland (no. 10273/02) The applicant, Jacek Marchowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Kraków (Poland).   In January 1997 Mr Marchowski was arrested on suspicion of homicide. He was acquitted in March 2001 and released. The proceedings against him are currently still pending on appeal. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his detention on remand, notably being kept in solitary confinement, and about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 and Article 5 § 4. However, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand (more than two years and 10 months). Mr Marchowski was awarded EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Creţu and Others v. Romania (no. 34877/02) The applicants, Ascenia, Simona and Petru Dorin Creţu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1933, 1962 and 1960 respectively and live in Botoşani (Romania).   The case concerned an action for recovery of possession granted against them by the Romanian courts. The applicants relied in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ţară Lungă v. Romania (no. 26831/03) The applicant, Traian Ţară Lungă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Constanţa (Romania).   He was a police officer and as such was a member of the armed forces. He alleged that income tax was unlawfully levied on his severance pay upon retirement and complained of discrimination on account of the fact that other servicemen in his situation had received non-taxable severance pay. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 3,700 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kuş v. Turkey (no. 27817/04) The applicant, Remzi Kuş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Sinn (Germany).   The case concerned the expropriation by Iğdır municipal authority of a plot of land belonging to the applicant, who did not receive any compensation. The applicant relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded Mr Kuş EUR 7,500 for pecuniary damage, together with EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 8 Paşaoğlu v. Turkey (no. 8932/03) The applicant, Turan Paşaoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Salonika (Greece).   The case concerned the refusal of the Turkish authorities to grant the applicant a renewal of his passport on account of a restriction registered in his name by the Turkish Ministry of the Interior. The applicant relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Having regard to the applicant’s personal and family situation at the relevant time, the Court considered that the maintaining of the measure for a long period, in the absence of any criminal charge, was disproportionate and could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage, together with EUR 267 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Satık v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 60999/00) The applicant, Kadir Satık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Ankara.   The case concerned Mr Satık’s allegation that he was ill-treated in police custody when arrested on suspicion of giving official and confidential information to the Greek intelligence service. Ultimately, the General Staff Military Court convicted him of espionage and sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. He further complained that, tried by a military court, the proceedings against him were not independent and impartial. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court noted that the applicant had failed, either before the military court or in his application form to this Court, to specify exactly how he had been ill-treated. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3. However, it held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the military court which had tried and convicted the applicant. Accordingly, the Court awarded Mr Satık, by six votes to one, EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Hubley v. the United Kingdom (no. 63480/00) Wakeling v. the United Kingdom (no. 61395/00) Wells v. the United Kingdom (no. 63477/00) The Court found the above violations in these three cases concerning the applicants’ complaints under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) that, as widowers, they had been refused Widow’s Bereavement Allowance.   In all three cases, the Court further decided to strike out the applicants’ complaints concerning Widow’s Payment and/or Widowed Mother’s Allowance given the agreements reached between the parties, in which Mr Hubley was awarded 6,758.14 pounds sterling (GBP) (EUR 8,550), Mr Wakeling GBP 3,736.31 (EUR 4,730) and Mr Wells GBP 9,280.34 (EUR 11,740).     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) Bonasia and Pozzi v. Italy (no. 62156/00) Caglioni v. Italy (no. 65082/01) Fuggi v. Italy (no. 64894/01) Maugeri v. Italy (no. 62250/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 13 Bieffe Rifugi Antiatomica S.R.L. v. Italy (no. 62354/00)     ***   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 Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.