003-2962216-3271922

961 15.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only 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.     Gavrilovici v. Moldova (application no. 25464/05) The applicant, Alexandru Gavrilovici, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954 and lives in Palanca (Moldova). Mr Gavrilovici’s wife and son suffer from chronic renal failure and have to travel to Chişinău for dialysis. From early 2004 the applicant’s wife and son had to apply to the regional council for financial aid with their transportation costs; in November 2004 the council met to discuss their case. Mr Gavrilovici attended and there was a heated exchange between him and the county President, I.M.. Proceedings were subsequently brought against the applicant for insulting I.M. at that meeting; at a hearing in January 2005 he was convicted and sentenced to five days’ administrative detention which he immediately had to serve. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the inhuman conditions of his detention. He also alleged that the real aim of the sanction imposed on him was not to protect I.M.’s reputation but was to punish him for criticising the region’s leadership, in breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 10 Just satisfaction: 6,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Leva v. Moldova (no. 12444/05) The applicants are two Moldovan nationals. Simion Leva who was born in 1953 and lives in Saint Petersburg (Russia), and his son, Octavian Leva, who was born in 1981 and lives in Bucharest. Simion Leva, a former director of S.A. Aroma, a State owned company which produced alcohol, and his son, were arrested in November 2004 on charges of large scale fraud. Relying in particular on Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained about the unlawfulness of their respective arrests, notably the absence of a reasonable suspicion that they had committed a crime and the fact that they had not been informed properly of the reasons for their arrest. Further relying on Article 5 § 4, both applicants complained that they had not been allowed sufficient time and facilities to prepare their defence. (Both applicants) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 (1st applicant) Violation of Article 5 § 4 (1st applicant) No violation of Article 5 § 4 (2nd applicant) No violation of Article 5 § 4 (Both applicants) No violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Revision Bugajny and Others v. Poland (no. 22531/05) The applicants are three Polish nationals who live in Poznań (Poland). Paweł Bugajny was born in 1963, and Tadeusz Ratajczak and Jarosław Słuja were born in 1964. In its judgment of 6 November 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the Polish authorities’ refusal to expropriate the applicants’ land, which had been used for roads accessible to the general public, and to give them compensation. The applicants were awarded, jointly, EUR 247,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 18,725 for costs and expenses. On 25 February 2008, the Government requested that the judgment in this case be revised as they alleged that new circumstances had arisen, notably that, in order to offset any damage suffered, the applicants had concluded easement contracts with the buyers of flats built on their land. In its judgment today, the Court decided, by five votes to two, to reject the Government’s request for revision.   Zapadka v. Poland (no. 2619/05) The applicant, Witold Zapadka, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Ostróda (Poland). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), Mr Zapadka complained that a lawyer appointed under a legal aid scheme had refused to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court in civil proceedings against a hospital seeking compensation for his being infected with hepatitis B during treatment for lung cancer. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Llavador Carretero v. Spain (no. 21937/06)* The applicant, Martin Vicente Llavador Carretero, is a Spanish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Puig de Sta Maria (Spain). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) in the context of administrative proceedings, he complained about the dismissal of his appeal on points of law – for failure to comply with the formal admissibility criteria – by a court that had previously accepted it. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Abdulhadi Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 13694/04)* The applicant, Abdulhadi Yıldırım, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), he complained of the authorities’ negligence in protecting the life of his son – a schizophrenic – who committed suicide in prison when, as a young conscript convicted for desertion, he began to serve his sentence. He further complained of the impossibility of identifying and punishing those responsible. Violations of Article 2 (life and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Burak Hun v. Turkey (no. 17570/04)* The applicant, Burak Hun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981. He was arrested and convicted of buying and selling drugs at the close of a police operation using an “agent provocateur”. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleged that he was incited to commit an offence by the agent. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: - non-pecuniary damage: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction - costs and expenses: EUR 1,500   Narin v. Turkey (no. 18907/02) The applicants are ten Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). They alleged that their relative, Abduvahit Narin, had been killed by the security forces on 3 October 1992 during a raid on his hotel following clashes with the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation) in Kulp (a district in the province of Diyarbakır). They also alleged that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into their relative’s death. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about the excessive length of the compensation proceedings they brought with regard to their relative’s death. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 8,500, jointly (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500, jointly (costs and expenses)   Sabri Aslan and Others v. Turkey (no. 37952/04)* The applicants are 12 Turkish nationals. They are the father, mother, brothers and sisters of Mr Naim Aslan, who was killed by accidental gunfire from the security forces while he was leading a herd to pasture land situated near the Iranian border. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complained about the refusal to grant them legal aid, which they had requested with a view to bringing an action for liability before the administrative courts. (lst and 8th applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500, jointly (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000, jointly (costs and expenses)   Turan and Turfan v. Turkey (no. 1413/03)* The applicants, Ahmet Turan and Müslüm Turfan, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1969 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were arrested in possession of false identity papers and placed in police custody. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they alleged that they had been subjected to ill-treatment in the police station. Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), they complained that they had been convicted on the basis of statements obtained from them under torture and that they had not been assisted by a lawyer. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000, jointly (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Fedotov v. Moldova (no. 6484/05) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce a final judgment in his favour in good time. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Companhia Agrícola do Vale de Água, S.A. v. Portugal (no. 11019/06)* Sampaio de Lemos and 22 other “agrarian reform” cases v. Portugal (nos. 41954/05, 42843/05, 3761/06, 6319/06, 6323/06, 7349/06, 7355/06, 7503/06, 8048/06, 10906/06, 11829/06, 11840/06, 12962/06, 14075/06, 14094/06, 14103/06, 14111/06, 15195/06, 15251/06, 16200/06, 19455/06, 24690/06 and 27603/06)* Vilhena Peres Santos Lanca Themudo e Melo and Others v. Portugal (n° 1408/06)* The applicants were all owners of land expropriated in 1975 as part of the agrarian reform policy. They complained that the amount received in compensation had not represented “fair compensation” and complained of a delay in the award and payment of the final amount. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Akyazici v. Turkey (no. 43452/02) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he had not been given a copy of the written opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation by the Principal Public Prosecutor. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     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 Kučera v. Slovakia (no. 29749/05) Paldan v. Slovakia (no. 18968/05) Špatka v. Slovakia (no. 36528/05) Bilgeç v. Turkey (no. 28578/05)*     ***   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) 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: 00 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.