003-3023546-3336569

130 16.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Finland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 10 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.     Barbaro v. Italy (application no. 16436/02)* The applicant, Francesco Barbaro, is an Italian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Carinola (Italy). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained of severe restrictions on his right of access to a court to challenge ministerial decrees placing him under the special regime provided for in section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Kostka v. Poland (no. 29334/06) The applicant, Stanisław Kostka, is a Polish national, born in 1934, and lives in Chmielno (Poland). Having been deported to Germany as a child with his parents with a view to performing forced labour in agriculture, he applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation for compensation. The Foundation’s verification commission decided that he was not eligible, as it could not be established that the family’s assignment to work in Germany had been compulsory. The applicant’s appeal against the decision was dismissed by the Foundation’s Appeal Commission and the administrative courts, at two levels of jurisdiction, refused to examine his appeals. He complained of this refusal, relying on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the Convention. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 25 (costs and expenses)   Alkes v. Turkey (no. 3044/04)* The applicant, Ali Ümit Alkes, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Istanbul. While still a minor, he was arrested during a search of his home on suspicion of taking part in an armed robbery on behalf of an illegal organisation. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody (including beatings, squeezing of the testicles, electric shocks, hosing with cold water, “Palestinian hanging” and psychological harassment) and that the police officers involved had gone unpunished. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 15,600 (non-pecuniary damage)   Tokmak v. Turkey (no. 16185/06)* The applicant, Fatma Tokmak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. She was arrested in 1996 in the course of an operation against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal armed organisation). Relying in particular on Article 5 §§ 3 (right to liberty and security), she complained about the length of her pre-trial detention, which lasted nine years. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Yeşilmen and Others v. Turkey (no. 7078/02)* The applicants, Şabeddin Yeşilmen, Mehmet Çelik and Gülseren Özdemir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1971, 1967 and 1978 respectively and are currently imprisoned in Tekirdağ and Gebze (Turkey). They were arrested on different dates in the course of an operation against an illegal armed organisation. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), they complained in particular about the length of their pre-trial detention. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against them and the lack of any remedies in respect of that complaint. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: to Mr Yeşilmen and Mr Çelik EUR 11,300, each, and to Mrs Özdemir EUR 10,450 (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 2,000, jointly (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Ciobaniuc v. Romania (no. 13067/03) Pică v. Romania (no. 25434/05)* These cases concerned the applicants’ inability to recover possession of property or effective compensation for property that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. The applicants relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     Length-of-proceedings cases   Raita v. Finland (no. 16207/05) Ateşsönşez v. Turkey (no. 22487/05) Pereira v. Portugal (no. 46595/06)* 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. In the case of Pereira the applicant also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). (Raita v. Finland and Ateşsönşez v. Turkey) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (Pereira v. Portugal) Violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13   ***   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.