003-3695413-4206860

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 166 (2011)   04.10.2011   Judgments concerning Austria, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal,   Romania and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14   judgments, seven of which (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final. The   others are Chamber judgments and are not final1.   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 (*).   Orlikowscy v. Poland (no. 7153/07)   The applicants, M. Orlikowski and J. Orlikowska, are Polish nationals who were born in   and live in Częstochowa (Poland). The case concerned several sets of proceedings   to which the applicants had been a party to prevent their neighbours operating an   abbatoir (and subsequently a smoking chamber) next to their house. They complained in   particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the   European Convention on Human Rights about the excessive length of the related   proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: 7,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for   costs and expenses   Bădilă v. Romania (no. 31725/04)   The applicant, Aurel Badila, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in   Giurgiu (Romania). Mr Badila complained about the conditions of his detention in Giurgiu   and Jilava prisons as well as on the medical ward of Rahova prison between 2002 and   while serving a seven-year sentence for attempted rape. Relying in particular on   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Convention, he   complained in particular about overcrowding, poor hygiene and inadequate medical care   for an anal fissure.   Violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage   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.   Mete and Others v. Turkey (no. 294/08) *   Following the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of   Kurdistan, an illegal armed organisation), the PKK called on shops in Diyarbakır city   centre to keep their metal shutters down in protest. On 23 February 1999, according to   the applicants, police officers forced open the metal shutters at their shop, broke the   windows, damaged equipment and goods and proceeded to beat them. During the   ensuing altercation, police officers allegedly fired shots in the air and beat the applicants,   who were trying to defend themselves and their shop. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of   inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicants, Şeyhmus Mete, Zafer Koluman,   Heybet Mete and Nofa Koluman, complained that they were ill-treated by the police on   the premises of their own shop.   Two violations of Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 11,173 for non-pecuniary damage to each applicant and   EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses   Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Zafranas v. Greece (no. 4056/08)*   The applicants complained that their land had been expropriated with a view to building   a railway line, without any compensation being awarded. The State had claimed   ownership of the land in question and the applicants had not qualified as having acquired   the land by means of adverse possession. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Agache v. Romania (no. 35032/09)   The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour. He relied   in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Kayacı and Others v. Turkey (no. 41485/05)*   The applicants complained about the decision by the Turkish courts to register the   Treasury as the owner of land which was rightfully theirs, without any compensation   having been paid to them. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of   property) and Article 6 (length of proceedings).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length   of non-criminal proceedings.   Pfeifenberger v. Austria (no. 6379/08)   Stelios Schinas-Spilios Kaisaris Koinopraxia v. Greece (no. 23410/09)   Violanda Truocchio v. Italy (nos. 20198/03 and 40403/04)*   Mularz v. Poland (no. 9834/08)   Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (no. 8) (nos. 13912/08, 57103/08 and 58480/08)*   Büyükkol v. Turkey (no. 24280/09)   Ganimet Taşkın v. Turkey (no. 17993/09)   Kulmaç v. Turkey (no. 43874/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in all the above cases and violation of Article 13 (right   to an effective remedy) in the case of Ferreira Alves   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   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.   3