003-3453241-3884201

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 169   01.03.2011   Judgments1 concerning Belgium, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland   and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine   judgments.   One repetitive case2 and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding   indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. The judgments available only in   French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Faniel v. Belgium (application no. 11892/08)*   The applicant, Michel Faniel, is a Belgian national who was born in 1965 and lives in   Modave (Belgium). He was sentenced in his absence to six months’ imprisonment for   failing to present his daughter in accordance with the child-custody arrangements.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention   on Human Rights, he complained that he had been deprived of his right of access to a   court, as he had not been informed of the relevant formalities and time-limits in order to   lodge an appeal against that judgment.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Just satisfaction: 3,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,255 (costs   and expenses)   Lalas v. Lithuania (no. 13109/04)   The applicant, Marius Lalas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1978. He is   currently in hiding. The case concerned Mr Lalas’ complaint that an undercover police   officer had entrapped him into supplying drugs in June 2002 and that subsequently he   had been unfairly convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He further   complained that certain essential evidence – notably the official document authorising   the undercover operation – had not been disclosed at his trial. He relied on Article 6 § 1   (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation constitutes in itself a sufficient just   satisfaction (non-pecuniary damage). The Court also recalled that, where an individual   had been convicted by a court in unfair proceedings, a retrial or reopening of the case   represented in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, these Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month   period following their delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,   judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the   Convention.       Welke and Białek v. Poland (no. 15924/05)   The applicants, Dorota Welke and Paweł Białek, are Polish nationals who were born in   and 1977 respectively and live in Kielce (Poland). Relying in particular on   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), they complained about the unfairness of   criminal proceedings brought against them in which they had been convicted of drug   trafficking. Among other things, they alleged that evidence obtained by covert police   operations (secret recordings and interception of a parcel containing cocaine), although   eventually excluded by the trial court, had influenced the outcome of their case.   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   Kaba and Others v. Turkey (no. 1236/05)   The applicants, Havva Kaba, Edanur Kaba and Elif Kaba, are three Turkish nationals who   were born in 1978, 2001 and 1997 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are the widow   and daughters of Yusuf Kaba who, an officer in the Turkish Navy, died in 2003 of cancer.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that they had been unable to bring   compensation proceedings before the Turkish courts for the death of their husband and   father, which they alleged had been caused by exposure to asbestos at Hasköy Dock, as   they could not afford to pay the court fees and had been refused legal aid. They relied   on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000, jointly (non-pecuniary damage)   Nevruz Bozkurt v. Turkey (no. 27335/04)*   The applicant, Nevruz Bozkurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977. She was   arrested in 1999 on suspicion of belonging to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an   illegal armed organisation), of having coordinated the levying of a revolutionary tax and   of having taken part in a firearm attack after a wedding, in which a former village guard   had been killed. In 2003 she was sentenced to life imprisonment for carrying out actions   aimed at the separation of part of Turkish territory, including participation in the murder   of a guard during a terrorist attack. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair   trial), she complained in particular about the composition of the State Security Court   before which she had been tried, the absence of a lawyer during her police custody and   the failure to notify her of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of   Cassation.   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (composition of the State Security Court; failure to   give notification of the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (absence of a   lawyer)   Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Sever v. Turkey (no. 29195/05)*   In this case the applicant complained that the authorities had deprived him of his   property without paying compensation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length   of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Csánics v. Hungary (no. 40293/06)   Czigányik v. Hungary (no. 38636/06)   Lantos v. Hungary (no. 33807/07)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – all three cases   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 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.   3