003-2877246-3167972

730 06.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Italy, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 30 Chamber judgments. The judgments only available in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   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.     Perinati v. Italy (application no. 8073/05)* The applicant, Giovanni Perinati, is an Italian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Vercelli (Italy). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that compensation he had received for the expropriation of his land was insufficient. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: 740,000 euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage), EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)   Deservire S.R.L. v. Moldova (no. 17328/04) The applicant, Deservire S.R.L., is a company registered in Moldova. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the company complained that the proceedings in a case it brought against the authorities in 1994 for unlawful seizure of its property had been too long, that the courts had not given sufficient reasons for their judgments and that no effective remedy had existed to speed up the proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 Just satisfaction: EUR 600 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Petru Roşca v. Moldova (no. 2638/05) The applicant, Petru Roşca, is a Moldovan national and a school teacher with a third-degree disability. He was born in 1956 and lives in Cahul (Moldova). Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), he alleged that he had been ill-treated in May 2004 when arrested by the police and while in detention on suspicion of minor hooliganism, and that he had been convicted without being given sufficient time to prepare his defence and without a lawyer. Violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Lewicki v. Poland (no. 28993/05) The applicant, Włodzimierz Lewicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Warsaw. Relying, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complained that his detention on suspicion of domestic violence had lasted for too long and that his appeals against the extension of his detention had not been examined promptly. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Almeida Santos v. Portugal (no. 50812/06)* The applicant, Rosária Maria Almeida Santos, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1938 and lives in Coimbra (Portugal). Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complained that she had not been present when an inventory of an estate to which she was an heir had been made with a view to its partition. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date, EUR 3,000 (costs and expenses)   C.C. v. Spain (no. 1425/06)* The applicant, C.C., is a Spanish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Salamanca (Spain). Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained that information about his medical condition had been disclosed in court decisions delivered in civil proceedings between him and his insurance company. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage), EUR 3,398 (costs and expenses)   Ali Hıdır Polat v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 7989/05)* The applicant, Ali Hıdır Polat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Tunceli (Turkey). Suspected of belonging to an illegal organisation, the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), he was arrested and remanded in custody. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained of ill-treatment while in police custody and of the lack of an effective remedy, the criminal proceedings against the police officers responsible having been discontinued as time-barred. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)   Bahçeli v. Turkey (no. 35257/04) The applicant, Murat Bahçeli, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul. 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 that he had been detained for too long pending trial and that the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation (the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front) had been too long. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Bozoğlu v. Turkey (no. 25099/04)* The applicant, Metin Bozoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul. Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complained that no hearing had been held in criminal proceedings against him and that the opinion of the public prosecutor at the assize court had not been communicated to him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Çatak v. Turkey (no. 26718/05) The applicant, Uğur Çatak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained that proceedings concerning his expulsion in 2004 from a military academy had been unfair in that he had been denied access to classified information. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Eraslan and Others v. Turkey (no. 59653/00) Gürova v. Turkey (no. 22088/03) Mehmet Zeki Doğan v. Turkey (no. 38114/03) The applicants are 16 Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial) they complained not having been assisted by a lawyer while in police custody. The applicants in the case of Eraslan and Others also complained of the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court in the criminal proceedings against them. (1st case) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (All 3 cases) Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: (1st case) EUR 1,000, each (non-pecuniary damage); (2nd case) EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses); (3rd case) Re-trial of applicant should he so request, and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Özcan Çolak v. Turkey (no. 30235/03) The applicant, Özcan Çolak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Tekirdağ (Turkey). The case concerned the applicant’s complaints of numerous breaches of the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation (the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), including that statements obtained from him under torture had been used to convict him. He relied in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (b) (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,700 (costs and expenses)   Seyfettin Acar and Others v. Turkey (no. 30742/03) The applicants are six Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Seyfettin Acar, Talat Acar, Yusuf Acar, Süleyman Acar, Narinci Acar and Hasbiye Acar, were born in 1945, 1967, 1945, 1953, 1957 and 1959, respectively. Talat Acar lives in İzmir. The other applicants live in Midyat. In April 1992 the applicants, travelling with relatives in south-east Turkey, alleged that they had been stopped by a group of village guards who had opened fire on them injuring two of the applicants and killing two of their relatives. Relying, in particular, on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complained that the Turkish authorities had not done all that was necessary to identify and punish those responsible. Violations of Article 2 (life and investigation) Just satisfaction: (1st and 2nd applicants) EUR 5,000, each (non-pecuniary damage); (3rd and 4th applicants) EUR 10,000, each (pecuniary damage) and EUR 20,000, each (non-pecuniary damage); (5th applicant) EUR 25,000 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 30,000 (non-pecuniary damage); (6th applicant) EUR 24,000 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 30,000 (non-pecuniary damage); EUR 4,150, jointly to all six applicants (costs and expenses)    Soyhan v. Turkey (no. 4341/04)* The applicant, Tülin Soyhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul. Suspected of being a member of the illegal organisation DHKP/C (the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front), she had been arrested and remanded in custody. Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) she complained of ill-treatment and the fact that she had not been assisted by a lawyer while in police custody, and also that the Turkish courts had taken into account confessions obtained from her under duress. Violation de l’article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Uygurer İnşaat SaN. TiC. LtD. ŞtI. V. Turkey (no. 26664/05)* The applicant company, Uygurer İnşaat SaN. TiC. LtD. ŞtI., is a limited liability company based in Ankara. Its complaint, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), concerned the non-payment by a municipality of sums owed to the company for renovation work carried out on public buildings. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 10,629 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Ricci and Others v. Italy (no. 42021/02)* This case concerned the inadequacy of expropriation compensation awarded to the applicants. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 62,000, jointly (pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Godorozea v. Moldova (no. 17023/05) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the domestic court had failed to summon her when her case had been examined on appeal. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 530 (costs and expenses)   Gǎtitu v. Romania (no. 16535/04)* This case concerned the applicant’s inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to him that had been illegally nationalised. He relied in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 27,600 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,400 (non-pecuniary damage)   Musteaţǎ and Others v. Romania (nos. 67344/01, 10772/04, 14819/04, 14025/05 and 23596/06)* This case concerned the Romanian authorities’ non-enforcement of final judgments in the applicants’ favour. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: (2nd and 4th cases) enforcement of decisions in favour of applicants within three months: (1st case) EUR 430 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage); (2nd case) EUR 6,500, jointly (non-pecuniary damage); (3rd case) EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 650 (costs and expenses); (4th case) EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage); (5th case) EUR 3,000, jointly (non-pecuniary damage)   Fırat and Others v. Turkey (no. 17597/03) Gezer v. Turkey (no. 18704/04)* In these cases the applicants complained of the damage they had sustained after compensation they had been awarded for expropriation lost value because the statutory default interest rate had been inadequate, and of the delay by the authorities in paying additional compensation for expropriation. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Gezer, the applicant also complained of the length of the proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: (1st case) EUR 1,000, each (non-pecuniary damage); (2nd case) EUR 11,000 (pecuniary damage)   Hasan Coşkun v. Turkey (no. 15360/05)* In this case the applicant complained that there had been no public hearing in proceedings brought against him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Karasińska v. Poland (no. 13771/02) Puchalska v. Poland (no. 10392/04) Baltutan and ANO İnşaat ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. v. Turkey (no. 9522/03) Tur-Ko Turizm Yatırım ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 41421/05) Yücel Doğan v. Turkey (no. 24647/04)     ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 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) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone : + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.