003-4296846-5134989

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 084 (2013)   19.03.2013   Judgments concerning Hungary, Romania and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four   Chamber judgments1, none of which is final. The judgments in French are indicated with   an asterisk (*).   X.Y. v. Hungary (application no. 43888/08)   The applicant, X.Y., is a Hungarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Budapest.   He was arrested in November 2007 on charges of a series of car thefts and placed in   detention on remand. He was released in May 2008 under house arrest. All restrictions   on his liberty were lifted in November 2009. The proceedings against him are currently   still pending. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the   European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged that his pre-trial detention from 18   February to 11 March 2008 had been unlawful on account of a typing error in an order to   extend his detention. Further relying on Article 5 § 3 (entitlement to trial within a   reasonable time or to release pending trial), he also alleged that the length of his pre-   trial detention had been excessive, and in particular that the decisions to extend his   detention had not taken into account a deterioration in his psychological health. Lastly,   he alleged under Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by   a court) that the proceedings in which he had challenged his continued detention had   been unfair, as he had not had access to relevant documents in his case file.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Just satisfaction: EUR 18,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 4,500   (costs and expenses)   Blejuşcă v. Romania (no. 7910/10)   The applicant, Maxim Silvanus Blejuşcă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971   and is serving a four-and-half-year sentence in Timişoara Prison (Romania) for robbery.   The case concerned Mr Blejuşcă’s complaint about the conditions of his detention in   Timişoara Prison, notably on account of overcrowding and poor hygiene. He relied on   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention.   Violation of Article 3 (conditions of detention)   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,600 (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   Mimtaş v. Turkey (no. 23698/07)*   The applicant, Ayhan Mimtaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971. At the time   the application was lodged he was being detained in Kandıra high-security prison   (Kocaeli, Turkey). Shortly after his transfer there, at a time of violent rioting involving   clashes between prisoners and the security forces, a medical report concerning   Mr Mimtaş noted several signs of injury, including oedema of his wrists and numerous   bruises to his body and face. In January 2001 Mr Mimtaş lodged a complaint with the   public prosecutor alleging that he had been ill-treated during his transfer. The complaint   was forwarded to the Governor of Kocaeli, who considered that Mr Mimtaş’s injuries were   the result of his involvement in the riots and refused to bring proceedings against the   gendarmes concerned. In March 2001 the public prosecutor commenced criminal   proceedings against five prison guards in the Kandıra Criminal Court, which acquitted   them in 2003. A month later Mr Mimtaş lodged an appeal on points of law, which was   eventually dismissed in 2006. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or   degrading treatment), Mr Mimtaş alleged that he had been subjected to violence during   his transfer to Kandıra high-security prison.   Two violations of Article 3 (ill-treatment + investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 9,750 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (costs and   expenses)   Solakoğlu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 3674/09, 4359/09, 15151/09,   15159/09, 15167/09, 15168/09, 15171/09, 15173/09, 27318/09,   27869/09, 28028/09, 28823/09, 29160/09, 30590/09, 31073/09,   32123/09, 32244/09, 32251/09, 32254/09, 32300/09, 32807/09,   33259/09, 33357/09, 36648/09, 36681/09, 38080/09, 43491/09,   48731/09, 49213/09, 56105/09, 63781/09 and 67456/09)*   The applicants are 243 Turkish nationals who were born between 1964 and 1975. They   are members of the Turkish national police force. In 2001, while they were in training to   become A-grade superintendents, a new law was passed under the terms of which   successful candidates could be assigned only to posts which offered less favourable   prospects of advancement. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the   proceedings in which they had applied to various administrative courts to have the   decisions in question set aside. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a   reasonable time), the applicants complained in particular of the failure to communicate   to them the opinion of State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the   time-limit.   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 here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   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