003-3165571-3528676

488 15.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 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.     Grzelak v. Poland (no. 7710/02) The applicants are Urszula Grzelak, and her husband, Czesław Grzelak, who were born in 1969 and 1965 respectively and live in Sobótka (Poland), and their son, Mateusz Grzelak, who was born in 1991. Relying in particular on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that the school authorities failed to organise a class in ethics for Mateusz, failed to give him a mark in his school report in the place reserved for “religion/ethics”, and that Mateusz was harassed and discriminated against for not following religious education classes. Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Mateusz Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation is sufficient just satisfaction   Pardus v. Poland (application no. 13401/03) The applicant, Jerzy Pardus, is a Polish national who lives in Warsaw. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention , the applicant complained of the excessive length of several sets of civil and criminal proceedings in which he was involved between 1992 and 2006. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 7,800 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Creangă v. Romania (no. 29226/03)* The applicant, Sorin Creangă, is a Romanian national who lives in Bucharest. Whilst serving as a junior police officer in Bucharest, he was arrested on suspicion of taking bribes and remanded in custody in July 2003. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, he argued that his detention during the criminal proceedings against him had been unlawful, for a number of reasons. Two violations of Article 5 § 1 (concerning two periods of detention) No violation of Article 5 § 1 (concerning the absence of motivation for one of his detention periods) Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (costs and expenses)   Ahmadpour v. Turkey (no. 12717/08) The applicant, Latife Ahmadpour (Derya Neverdi), is an Iranian national who lives in Kırklareli (Turkey). After having escaped together with her children from conjugal violence in Iran and arrived in Turkey in 2005, she was recognised by the UNHCR as a refugee in 2008. In the meantime, the Turkish Ministry of Interior refused her temporary asylum request and informed her, in November 2007, that she would be deported. Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that her removal to Iran would expose her to a real risk of death or ill-treatment. (If applicant expelled) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: the finding of a potential violation of Article 3 is sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage   Aşıcı and Others v. Turkey (no. 17561/04)* Arpat v. Turkey (no. 26730/05)* In the first case the applicants, 13 Turkish nationals, were arrested in September 2000 during a demonstration outside the US Consulate in Istanbul while protesting against the arrival of representatives of the International Monetary Fund in Turkey and against F-type prisons. In the second case, the applicant, Müjgan Süheyla Arpat, a Turkish and German national who lives in Istanbul, was arrested in June 2003 in connection with a demonstration in support of a campaign entitled “Women’s appeal for dialogue on Kurdish question”. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), all the applicants complained about their arrest and the treatment they allegedly received during their arrest or shortly afterwards. (Both cases) Violation of Article 11 (2nd case) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: to each applicant in the first case EUR 1,800; to Mrs Arpat EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Just satisfaction Fener Rum Patrikliği (Ecumenical Patriarchate) v. Turkey (no. 14340/05)* The applicant, Fener Rum Patrikliği (the Ecumenical Patriarchate), is an Orthodox church in Istanbul and represents the Orthodox minority in Turkey. In a judgment of 8 July 2008 the Court held that the Turkish authorities were not entitled to deprive the applicant of its property without providing for appropriate compensation. The church had not received any compensation and it had therefore had to bear an individual and excessive burden, entailing a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it. In today’s judgment, the Court held that Turkey had to reregister the property in question in the land register in the applicant’s name and to pay to the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 20,000 for costs and expenses.   M.B. and Others v. Turkey (no. 36009/08) The applicants, M.B., his wife, Z.P., and their two children, M.B. and T.B., are Iranian nationals who were born in 1960, 1959, 1989 and 1984 respectively and were living in Hakkari (Turkey) at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. On 30 July 2008, the European Court of Human Rights, acting under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, indicated to the Turkish authorities that the applicants should not be deported to Iran until 3 September 2008; however, they were deported on the same day. When in Iran and escorted by the Iranian police to court, the applicants bribed the officers, escaped and subsequently re-entered Turkey. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), they complained that, as they had converted to Christianity, their removal to Iran would expose them to a real risk of death or ill-treatment and that they had no effective remedy at their disposal with which to challenge their deportation. Relying further on Article 34 (right of individual petition), they complained of their deportation to Iran despite the Court’s indication. (If applicants expelled) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 No violation of Article 34 Just satisfaction: the finding of a potential violation is sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage   S.H. v. United Kingdom (no. 19956/06) The applicant, S.H., is a Bhutanese national of ethnic Nepalese origin who currently lives in Huddersfield. He claimed asylum in but the application was refused and he was served with removal directions. Prior to his removal, the Court indicated to the United Kingdom Government that he should not be expelled. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained that his removal to Bhutan would expose him to a risk of ill-treatment on account of his ethnicity, his status as a failed asylum seeker, and as the close relative of a human rights activist who has been granted asylum in the United Kingdom. (If applicant expelled) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: none, as no claim made by the applicant     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Pinto Romão de Sousa Chaves and Others v. Portugal (no. 44452/05)* This case concerned the delay in calculating and paying the compensation awarded to the applicants for expropriation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction Forna v. Romania (no. 34999/03) In a judgment of 5 May 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour concerning a plot of land. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it. In today’s judgment, the Court held that the respondent State had to enforce the 3 February 2003 judgment within three months, and that Romania had to pay to the applicant EUR 4,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.   Mureşanu v. Romania (no. 12821/05) This case concerned the partial non-enforcement of a final judgment in favour of the applicant. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Adem Yılmaz Doğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 25700/05)* In this case, the applicants complained that they were deprived of their property, designated as forest area, without compensation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Köksal and Durdu v. Turkey (nos. 27080/08 and 40982/08) This case concerned the failure to provide the applicants with a copy of the opinion of the public prosecutors to the Supreme Administrative Court and the length of the administrative proceedings they had brought. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length)   Kurt and Others v. Turkey (no. 20313/03) This case concerned the failure by the domestic authorities to enforce, in good time, final judgments in favour of the applicants concerning compensation. The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     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.   Kokavecz v. Hungary (no. 39138/05) Váraljai v. Hungary (no. 31172/07) Seweryn v. Poland (no. 33582/08) Cemil Aydın v. Turkey (no. 8537/05) Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in all cases   Revision Adamczuk v. Poland (no. 30523/07) The Polish Government requested revision of the judgment of 17 July 2008. In its judgment today, the Court decided to uphold the operative provisions of the judgment of 17 July 2008.     ***   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.