003-3182669-3555537

539 06.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Finland, Hungary, Poland and Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Two repetitive cases[2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Mariapori v. Finland (application no. 37751/07) Niskasaari and Others v. Finland (no. 37520/07) The applicant in the first case, Anna-Liisa Mariapori, is a Finnish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Muurola (Finland). The applicants in the second case are a Finnish publishing company, Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy, based in Helsinki, and a freelance journalist and editor-in-chief of Seura magazine, Mikko Niskasaari and Jouni Flinkkilä, Finnish nationals born in 1952 and 1948, respectively, who live in Helsinki. The applicants’ complaints concerned their criminal convictions for defamation: in the first case, following the publication of a book in which Ms Mariapori, a tax expert, accused a tax inspector of perjury in tax fraud proceedings; and, in the second case, after publication of an article which contained inaccuracies about a Child Ombudsman’s removal from her functions. They relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, they also complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against them. (Both cases) Violation of Article 10 (Ms Mariapori and Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: -pecuniary damage: to Ms Mariapori, 33,390.84 euros (EUR), and to the applicants in the second case EUR 28,688.86 jointly -non-pecuniary damage: to Ms Mariapori, EUR 6,000 -costs and expenses: to Ms Mariapori, EUR 10,000, and to the applicants in the second case EUR 8,500, jointly   Turán v. Hungary (no. 33068/05) The applicant, Tünde Turán, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest. A lawyer, Ms Turán complained about the unlawfulness of a search of her office by the police in October 2004 during which documents concerning one of her clients, suspected of involvement in illegal financial activities, were seized. She relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses)   Jarkiewicz v. Poland (no. 23623/07) The applicant, Adam Jarkiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Warsaw. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), Mr Jarkiewicz complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand following his arrest in April 2005 on suspicion of drug trafficking, and about the censorship of his correspondence by the remand centre authorities. He was released in September 2007. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Zawadzki v. Poland (no. 648/02) The applicant, Jan Zawadzki, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Hajnówka (Poland). Convicted of theft in August 2000 and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, Mr Zawadzki complained that the legal-aid lawyer assigned to his case refused to file a cassation appeal. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Degeratu v. Romania (no. 35104/02)* The applicant, Romulus Degeratu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Râmnicu Vâlcea (Romania). Mr Degeratu, a police officer, was taken into custody and criminal proceedings were opened against him on suspicion of aiding and abetting the theft of oil from pipelines. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Degeratu complained about the excessive length of his detention pending trial and the lack of reasoning given for the decisions to keep him in detention. Relying on Article 5 § 5, he further complained that there had been no possibility of seeking compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,200 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 100 (costs and expenses)   Dimakos v. Romania (no. 10675/03) The applicant, Ioannis Dimakos, a businessman, is a Greek national who was born in 1951 and is currently living in Certeze (Satu Mare, Romania). Arrested in March 1998 and released in June 2009 after serving a sentence for bribery, embezzlement, forgery and smuggling, Mr Dimakos complained about the conditions of his detention in the various Romanian prisons in which he had been held during that period. He relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Nicuţ-Tănăsescu v. Romania (no. 25842/03)* The applicant, Gheorghe Nicuţ-Tănăsescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Constanţa (Romania). Suspected of corruption and abuse of public office, he was taken into custody and criminal proceedings were opened against him. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Nicuţ-Tănăsescu complained that when he had been arrested he had not been brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, in order to verify the lawfulness of his detention. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 600 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Postolache v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 48269/08)* This case concerned the annulment by the domestic courts of an appeal lodged by the applicant because he had not paid stamp duty. He relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   S.C. Prodcomexim S.R.L. v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 31760/06) In this case the applicant company complained of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in its favour. It relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Length-of-proceedings case   Rejzmund v. Poland (no. 42205/08)* In this case, the applicant complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of civil proceedings for compensation which she brought against her dentist. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   ***   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 [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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.