003-2759116-3031118

472 16.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Armenia, Poland, Romania and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 Chamber judgments, none of which are final[1].   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 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3(b) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 Gasparyan v. Armenia (No. 2) (application no. 22571/05) The applicant, Maksim Gasparyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). Mr Gasparyan alleged that in May 2004 he was arrested in order to prevent him from taking part in demonstrations organised in Yerevan. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6  (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the unlawfulness of his detention and the unfairness of the ensuing expedited administrative proceedings brought against him for disturbing public order. The case also concerned the fact that he had no right to contest the decision against him, in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right to appeal in criminal matters) to the Convention. As in a number of other similar cases against Armenia already examined by the Court, the applicant had been taken to and kept in a police station – without any contact with the outside world – where he had been charged and, in a matter of hours, taken to court and convicted. The Court did not see any reason to reach a different finding in the applicant’s case and concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (b) in that the applicant had not had a fair hearing, in particular as he had not been given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. Also as in previous cases, the Court found that the appeal procedure available to the applicant had lacked any clearly-defined procedure, time-limits or consistent application in practice, in violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. The applicant’s complaint under Article 5 was declared inadmissible. Mr Gasparyan was awarded 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Soare v. Romania (no. 72439/01) The applicant, Ion Soare, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the length of criminal proceedings brought against him by a bank in 1997 for deception and forgery. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as the proceedings had lasted more than six years and eight months before the investigating authorities. It also found a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Alptekin v. Turkey (no. 6016/03) İmren v. Turkey (no. 6045/04) The applicants, Cem Alptekin and Abdullah İmren, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1955 and 1949 respectively and live in Istanbul. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), both applicants complained about the length of criminal proceedings brought against them for offences including unlawfully obtaining documents belonging to the Intelligence Service in the case of Mr Alptekin, and fraudulent use of a cheque in the case of Mr İmren. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, as the proceedings had lasted approximately ten years and eleven months in the case of Alptekin and seven years and four months in the case of İmren. The Court awarded Mr Alptekin EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 for costs and expenses and Mr İmren EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Aygül v. Turkey (no. 43550/04) The applicant, Galip Aygül, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul. He was arrested in 1992, sentenced to life imprisonment in 2005, and released in 2007. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Aygül complained about the length of his pre-trial detention and the lack of a hearing before the court that had examined the objections he had filed against his detention. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of the proceedings against him, which are still pending. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3, as the applicant’s pre-trial detention had lasted approximately 13 years and five months in total, and of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of a hearing before the court that had examined Mr Aygül’s objections against his detention. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, as the proceedings had lasted 16 years and eight months. The Court awarded Mr Aygül EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Aytan and Ömer Polat v. Turkey (no. 43526/02) The applicants, Aytan Polat and her husband, Ömer Polat, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1965 and 1963 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), they complained about their detention in police custody. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of Mr and Mrs Polat’s detention for eight days following their arrest in the course of an operation against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation). It also held that the applicants had not had an effective opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in police custody, in breach of Article 5 § 4. The Court also found a violation of Article 5 § 5 in that there was no right to compensation for the breach of their rights under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4. It awarded the applicants EUR 2,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 10 Bahçeci and Turan v. Turkey (no. 33340/03) The applicants, Ömer Bahçeci and Fikret Turan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1982. They were sentenced to imprisonment in May 2002 for disseminating propaganda against the unity of the Turkish nation and the territorial integrity of the State. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained that the State Security Court had not been impartial, and under Article 10 (freedom of expression), they alleged that their criminal conviction had infringed their right to freedom of thought and expression. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. It awarded the applicants EUR 1,500 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Bilgin and Bulga v. Turkey (no. 43422/02) Gülçer and Aslım v. Turkey (no. 19914/03) Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gülabi Aslan v. Turkey (no. 36838/03) The applicants, Salih Zeki Bilgin, İlhan Bulğa, Gülabi Aslan, Mehmet Tahir Gülçer and Kasım Aslım, are five Turkish nationals. They were sentenced to imprisonment by the State Security Court for belonging to an armed gang. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), they complained that the State Security Court had not been impartial, that the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to them and that they had not been assisted by a lawyer while in police custody. In the cases of Bilgin and Bulğa and Gülçer and Aslım, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to communicate the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion. In the case of Bilgin and Bulğa, it also found a violation of the same Article on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court. As regards the complaint concerning the absence of a lawyer during the applicants’ time in police custody, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in the cases of Bilgin and Bulğa and Gülçer and Aslım, and a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 in the case of Gülabi Aslan. The applicants were awarded EUR 1,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 each (with the exception of Mr Gülçer and Mr Aslım) for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (fairness) Karabil v. Turkey (no. 5256/02) The applicant, Hüseyin Karabil, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). An active member of HADEP (People’s Democratic Party), he was sentenced in 2000 to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation) and had his sentence reduced to six years and three months in 2005 following the entry into force of a new Criminal Code. Mr Karabil complained in general about the system of penalties for offences under the jurisdiction of the State Security Court and, relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (b) (right to a fair trial), he complained about the lack of legal assistance during the preliminary investigation, the State Security Court’s consideration of a confession extracted from him by means of torture, and the failure to communicate the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation on the merits of his appeal. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) on account of the absence of a lawyer during the preliminary investigation and a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) on account of the failure to communicate the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion. The Court awarded Mr Karabil EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the cases of Abdulaziz Danış and Başaran and Others the applicants also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). In the case of Kęsiccy, the Court declared inadmissible the complaint concerning the first set of proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kęsiccy v. Poland (no. 13933/04) Erhun v. Turkey (nos. 4818/03 and 53842/07)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Abdulaziz Danış v. Turkey (no. 23573/02) Başaran and Others v. Turkey (nos. 42422/04, 2102/05, 18194/05, 18772/05, 33222/05, 36990/05 and 37050/05)     ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.