003-3665774-4165464

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 142 (2011)   13.09.2011   Judgments concerning Moldova, Poland, Serbia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12   judgments, none of which are final.   Repetitive cases2 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 (*).   Dragostea Copiilor - Petrovschi - Nagornii v. Moldova (no. 25575/08)   The applicant company runs a primary school in Chişinău (Moldova). A party to civil   proceedings in 2001, the company was ordered to pay an individual 78,400 US dollars.   However, in a final judgment in July 2007, an appeal court found that the application for   enforcement of the order was time-barred. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)   and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, the company complained that the final judgment in its favour had been   subsequently quashed in review proceedings, which ended in October 2008 with a   Supreme Court judgment enforcing the original payment order. The company also   complained that the judge rapporteur in the review proceedings had been changed in   disregard of the applicable provisions.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Question of just satisfaction reserved   Bystrowski v. Poland (application no. 15476/02)   The applicant, Artur Bystrowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in   Strzelin. Convicted of a number of offences, including multiple theft, forgery and   leadership of an organised criminal gang, and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in   2004, he complained, in particular, that the length of his detention on remand had been   unreasonable. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   Relying further on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8   (right to respect for private and family life and the home), he complained, in particular,   that he had been detained in an overcrowded cell and that his correspondence with the   European Court of Human Rights had been monitored.   No violation of Article 5 § 3   Complaints under Article 3 and 8: The Court took note of the Government’s unilateral   declaration in which they acknowledged that the applicant’s conditions of detention, in   particular overcrowding, had not been compatible with Article 3 and that the censorship   of the applicant’s correspondence had not been compatible with the requirements of   Article 8, and that they offered to pay him 8,000 Polish zlotys in respect of pecuniary   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month   period following a judgment’s 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.   and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. The Court therefore decided to   strike this part of the application out of its list of cases.   Wersel v. Poland (no. 30358/04)   The applicant, Krzysztof Wersel, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and is   currently serving a prison sentence in Brzeg Prison. He has been continuously detained   since September 2000. Convicted of three counts of armed robbery and sentenced to   three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment in October 2003, he complained in particular that   the appeal court’s refusal to grant him legal assistance to prepare a cassation appeal   infringed his right to defend himself and resulted in his irrevocably losing an opportunity   to institute cassation proceedings. He alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair   trial) in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to defend oneself).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c)   Just satisfaction: 2,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Živić v. Serbia (no. 37204/08)   The applicant, Dalibor Živić, is a Serbian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in   Kosovska Mitrovica (Kosovo)3. He is employed as a police officer with the Ministry of   Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia. In 2000 and 2003 the Serbian Government   adopted two decisions allowing the salaries of their employees living and working in   Kosovo to be doubled. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant   complained that the domestic courts’ decisions concerning his ensuing claim, in which he   had sought the difference between the salary increase granted by the Government and   the one he actually received, had been inconsistent with other relevant case-law. In   particular, the applicant’s claim was rejected whilst numerous other claims brought by   his colleagues were successful, even though they were based on the same facts and   concerned identical legal issues.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 296.48 (costs and   expenses)   Ali Kiliç and Others v. Turkey (no. 13178/05) *   The applicants are Turkish nationals who were born in 1946, 1953 and 1958 respectively   and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). On 9 June 1977 they acquired land in the village of   Karabulak, in Kulp (Diyarbakır), part of which was inherited and part purchased. Relying   on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they alleged that the classification   of their property as falling within a forestry zone, without any compensation, constituted   a disproportionate interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their   possessions.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 450,000 (pecuniary damage), EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary   damage) and EUR 2,500 (costs and expenses)   Erkmen and Others v. Turkey (no. 6950/05) just satisfaction *   The applicants are Turkish nationals who were born in 1932, 1940, 1941, 1966, 1968,   and 1964 respectively and live in Samsun. In this case the applicants complained   Reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, shall be understood in full   compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of   Kosovo.   about the annulment of their title to property, in favour of the Public Treasury, without   compensation. In a judgment of 16 May 2010 (judgment on the merits) the Court found   that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The   Court further upheld the complaint that they had not received any compensation in   return for the transfer of their property to the Treasury. In today’s judgment, the Court   decided on the question of just satisfaction (Article 41).   Just satisfaction: EUR 150,000 (pecuniary damage), EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary   damage)   Feryadi Şahin v. Turkey (no. 33279/05) *   The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul. On   December 1988 he acquired part of a plot of land in Samandra and a document   attesting to his title was issued to him by the Directorate General for Property Deeds and   Registration. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant   alleged that the annulment of his title in December 2003 and the re-registration of his   property in the name of the Public Treasury, without the payment of any compensation,   constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of   his possessions.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Question of just satisfaction reserved   Koper v. Turkey (no. 18538/05) *   The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1917 and lives in Izmir. In April 1966   he acquired farmland in the village of Bulgurca, Menemen (Izmir). Relying on Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained that he was deprived of   his property title in 2002 without receiving any compensation.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Question of just satisfaction reserved   Malhas and Others v. Turkey (nos. 35476/06, 28530/06, 43192/06 and   43194/06) *   The applicants are Turkish nationals who were born in 1915, 1948, 1966 and 1945   respectively and live in Istanbul. The domestic courts decided to annul the applicants’   title to property and to register their land in the name of the Public Treasury and the   Court of Cassation dismissed their applications for rectification of the decisions. Relying   in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants alleged   that the restrictions imposed on their ownership right (applications nos. 35476/06 and   43194/06) and the annulment for the benefit of the Public Treasury, without   compensation, of their title (applications nos. 28530/06 and 43192/06) constituted   disproportionate interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their   possessions.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Question of just satisfaction reserved   Mehmet Şerif Öner v. Turkey (no. 50356/08)   The applicant, Mehmet Şerif Öner, is a Turkish national who is currently serving a life   sentence in prison in Turkey. Convicted by a final judgment in 2008 of “engaging in   illegal activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national   territory”, an offence under the former Criminal Code, he complained that his defence   rights were violated as he was denied access to a lawyer during his police custody. He   further alleges that the president of the first-instance court which tried and convicted   him was not impartial. The applicant relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair   trial).   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,800 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and   expenses)   Sarisoy v. Turkey (no. 19641/05) *   The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Istanbul. On   December 1985 he acquired land in Pendik/Istanbul. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained that in December 2004 he was   deprived of his property, which was transferred to the Public Treasury, without   compensation.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 230,000 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary   damage)   Ashendon and Jones v. the United Kingdom (nos. 35730/07 and 4285/08)   The applicants, Joe Anthony Ashendon and Marilyn Jones, are British nationals who were   born in 1985 and 1949 respectively. They were tried in unrelated criminal proceedings   and were both acquitted in 2007, Mr Ashendon of charges of rape and sexual assault,   and Ms Jones of charges of perverting the course of justice and of conspiring to steal   from a company for which she had worked as an accountant. Refused defence costs by   their respective trial courts, they alleged a violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of   innocence).   No violation of Article 6 § 2 in both 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   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | 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)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   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.   4