003-4527425-5463208

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Press release issued by the Registrar     22.7.2003   Chamber judgments concerning   Czech Republic, Finland, France, Romania, Spain,   Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13   Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final.1   Violation Article 6 § 1   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – inadmissible   (1) Schmidtová v. Czech Republic (application no. 48568/99)   Length of administrative and judicial proceedings   The applicant, Berta Schmidtová, has dual Czech and German nationality. She was born in   and lives in Brno. Her husband owned agricultural land and buildings in Brno, which   were confiscated in 1945 pursuant to Presidential decree no. 12/1945. The applicant’s   husband died in 1951.   At some point between 18 and 21 December 1992 Mrs Schmidtová informed the Land   Registry Office of the town of Brno (pozemkový úřad magistrátu města Brna) that she   intended to seek restitution of the properties that had been confiscated. She requested the   occupiers to return the properties to her. The Land Registry Office issued an administrative   decision turning down most of her requests, whereupon the applicant sought judicial review   in the Regional Court (krajský soud). Those proceedings are still pending.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of   the European Convention on Human Rights, of the length of proceedings for the restitution of   the properties confiscated by the State. She also complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No.   (protection of property), of the financial consequences of the delays in the proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the dispute had given rise to an   administrative procedure followed by judicial proceedings. Under domestic law, the   proceedings were deemed to have started 60 days after the applicant’s letters before action to   the occupiers of the properties concerned. The proceedings were still pending after 10 years   and 3 months.   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 -   The Court found that the case had been complex. However, although there had been delays   attributable to the applicant, they were minor when compared to the overall length of the   proceedings. There had been periods of inaction on the part of the national authorities, who   had not always acted expeditiously. There was a lot at stake for the applicant, particularly in   view of her age and declining health. Accordingly, the Court found that the proceedings had   not been heard within a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the   Convention and held unanimously that there had been violation of that provision.   As to the applicant’s complaint of a violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her   possessions, the Court noted that the issue was still before the domestic courts. Consequently,   it declared that part of the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 6,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment   is available only in French.)   (2) Hyvönen v. Finland (no. 52529/99)   Friendly settlement   Appeal struck out after applicant’s failure to attend hearing   Martti Hyvönen, a Finnish national, was born in 1928 and lives in Turku (Finland). On   June 1998 he was convicted of aggravated concealment of stolen goods and aggravated   forgery and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. His appeal was struck out after he had   failed to attend the hearing – allegedly due to dementia and other age-related illnesses. His   request for the proceedings to be reopened was dismissed on 15 July 1999. He was refused   leave to appeal.   Mr Hyvönen complained, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention, that he   had been denied a fair hearing in the criminal proceedings because his dementia and other   age-related illnesses were not accepted as valid reasons for his failure to attend the appeal   hearing. Furthermore, his lawyer was unable to submit pleadings or re-examine a witness.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 2,500 is to be   paid for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is   available only in English.)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (3) SA Cabinet Diot and SA Gras Savoye v. France (nos. 49217/99 and 49218/99)   Violation of property right through failure to reimburse VAT paid in error   The applicants, Cabinet Diot and Gras Savoye, are two insurance broking companies whose   head offices are in Paris and Neuilly-sur-Seine respectively.   They were liable to value added tax (VAT) on their trading activities for 1978. However, the   Sixth Directive of the Council of the European Communities, which came into force on   January 1978, provided an exemption from VAT for insurance and reinsurance   transactions. A further Council directive issued on 30 June 1978 granted France additional   time in which to implement the Sixth Directive. However, since the new directive did not   - 3 -   have retroactive effect, the Sixth Directive remained applicable from 1 January 1978 to   June 1978.   Relying on the Sixth Directive, the applicant companies claimed reimbursement of the VAT   paid in error for the year 1978. Their claims were dismissed by the administrative court and   the Conseil d’Etat, notably on the ground that a European directive could not be relied on   directly to defeat a provision of domestic law. Both companies subsequently lodged further   appeals which were dismissed by the Conseil d’Etat on 9 December 1998.   The applicant companies complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of   property) to the Convention, that they had been unable to obtain reimbursement of the VAT   paid for 1978.   The Court referred to its case-law and noted that the applicant companies had had claims   against the State for VAT paid in error for the period from 1 January to 30 June 1978 and, in   any event, at least a legitimate expectation of securing repayment.   The interference with the applicants’ property had not been necessary in the “general   interest”. Both the dismissal of the applicant companies’ claims against the State and the lack   of an adequate domestic remedy to ensure that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their   possessions was protected had upset the fair balance that had to be maintained between the   demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of   the fundamental rights of the individual. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there   had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Cabinet Diot   EUR 102,807.50 and Gras Savoye EUR 275,991.57 for pecuniary damage. It also awarded   each of the companies EUR 15,244.90 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available   only in French.)   (4) Coste v. France (no. 50632/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Length of criminal proceedings   Pascal Coste is a French national who was born in 1955 and lives at Verdière. He was   involved in a brawl with police officers on 21 January 1984 and arrested the same day by   other police officers.   On 16 March 1984 the police officers lodged a criminal complaint and applied for leave to   join the proceedings as civil parties. A judicial investigation was started, the applicant being   charged with common assault, assaulting police officers, insulting behaviour and obstructing   an officer in the execution of his duty. The Criminal Court gave him a two months’   suspended prison sentence. The police officers’ application to join the proceedings as civil   parties was granted. The proceedings ended on 23 February 1999 with the dismissal of the   applicant’s appeal to the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the   applicant complained of the excessive length of the proceedings.   - 4 -   The Court noted that it was not clear from the case file when exactly the “criminal charges”   within the meaning of the Convention had been brought against the applicant. Consequently,   it found that the proceedings had lasted a minimum of 14 years, 11 months and 7 days if the   date the police officers started the proceedings was taken as the starting point, and a   maximum of 15 years, 1 month and 2 days if the date of the applicant’s arrest was taken as   the starting point.   Having examined the circumstances of the case, the Court found that although the applicant   had contributed to delays in the proceedings, most of the delays were attributable to the   courts. The Court found that the applicant’s case had not been heard within a “reasonable   time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and held unanimously that there   had been a violation of that provision.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant   EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations Article 6 § 1   (5) Dickmann v. Romania (no. 36017/97)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Nationalisation of property   Dora Dickmann is a Romanian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Tel Aviv (Israel).   In 1950 the Romanian State nationalised property in Bucharest which her parents had   purchased in 1938. The property comprised a block of five flats and adjoining land.   As heir to the estate, Ms Dickmann brought an action claiming title to the property. The   tribunals of fact found in her favour in a judgment that became final and unappealable.   However, the Supreme Court of Justice granted an application by the Principal State Counsel   for Romania to have that final judgment set aside, on the ground that the ordinary courts had   no jurisdiction to review the application of nationalisation decrees. The State sold off two of   the flats in the building to third parties. The applicant then brought a further action claiming   title and the court of first instance again found in her favour in a judgment that became final   and unappealable. The building was returned to the applicant, with the exception of the two   flats that had been sold off.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, of   the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to accept that the domestic courts had jurisdiction to   hear a claim to title to land. She also complained that the Supreme Court was not impartial   and independent, as it had bowed to “political pressure” from the President of Romania and   departed from its case-law. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property) that her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions had   been infringed.   Referring to its case-law, the Court found that by setting aside a final judgment, the Supreme   Court of Justice had contravened the principle of legal certainty and thereby violated the   applicant’s right to a fair hearing, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. It further held that the   Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the applicants’   claim to title to the land was in itself contrary to the right of access to a court. Consequently,   it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 under both these heads. In   the light of these findings, the Court considered that no separate examination of the   - 5 -   applicant’s complaint of a failure to ensure equality of arms in the proceedings in the   Supreme Court of Justice was necessary.   As to the allegation that the Supreme Court of Justice was not independent and impartial, the   Court noted that, although the Romanian President’s statements had undoubtedly been critical   of the judiciary, they were addressed primarily to the authorities responsible for executing   judicial decisions, not the courts. There was nothing to suggest that they had had any   influence on the judges of the Supreme Court who had sat in the applicant’s case.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the   Convention on that account.   With regard to the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court noted that   Ms Dickmann’s right of property had been established by a final judgment and had therefore   been irrevocable. The Supreme Court’s judgment had had the effect of depriving her of her   property. In those circumstances, the Court found that the fair balance between the demands   of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the   individual’s fundamental rights had been upset; the applicant had had to bear an individual   and excessive burden and, in respect of the part of the property that had not been returned,   continued to do so. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation   of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Romania had to   return to Ms Dickmann within three months of the date on which this judgment became final   the two flats that had not yet been returned to her. Failing that, the State was to pay her   EUR 130,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded her EUR 8,000 for non-   pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (6) Gabarri Moreno v. Spain (no. 68066/01)   Violation Article 7 § 1   Lawfulness of length of imprisonment in view of mitigating circumstance   Juan Gabarri Moreno is a Spanish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Madrid.   On 4 June 1996 he was found guilty of heroin trafficking by the Madrid Audiencia Provincial   and sentenced to eight years and a day in prison and to a fine. The Audiencia Provincial   noted that he had been suffering from acute depression for ten years, a mental disorder which   it accepted constituted a mitigating circumstance.   The applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court, arguing that the mitigating   circumstance had not been taken into account and that he should have received a lesser   sentence. In a judgment of 3 June 1997, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal on the   ground that the reduction in sentence he had been given by the Audiencia Provincial had not   been manifestly disproportionate given the gravity of the offence. The applicant lodged an   amparo appeal which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 21 September 2000.   Having been in custody since 13 May 1995, the applicant was released on licence on 25 July   1999.   - 6 -   The applicant complained, under Article 7 § 1 (no punishment without law) of the   Convention, of the domestic courts’ refusal to accord him the reduction in sentence   prescribed by the criminal law for mitigating circumstances.   The Court noted, firstly, that State Counsel in the Supreme Court had submitted that the   applicant ought to have been given a reduction in sentence of at least one degree on the scale   of gravity. That submission was confirmed by the relevant domestic case-law and legislation,   which showed that the Audiencia Provincial should have reduced the sentence by at least one   degree.   When the mitigating circumstance was taken into account, the applicant’s sentence under   Spanish criminal law should have been a term of imprisonment of between six years and a   day and eight years. The legal-certainty requirement inherent in the lawfulness principle   required the sentence to be rectified, but that was not done. The Court therefore found that   Mr Gabarri Moreno had been given a heavier sentence than that carried by the offence of   which he had been convicted. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation   of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant   EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment   is available only in French.)   Violation Article 3   (7) Ayşe Tepe v. Turkey (no. 29422/95)   Violation Article 5 § 3   Allegation of ill-treatment while in police custody / Unlawfulness and length of detention in   police custody   Ayşe Tepe is a Turkish national who was born in 1975.   She asserted that she had been arrested by the police on 9 December 1993 and detained at the   headquarters of the Istanbul security police. According to the Turkish authorities, Ms Tepe   was arrested on 12 December 1993 during a police operation against a presumed member of   the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and taken into police custody on the same day. The   public prosecutor ordered police custody to be extended until 27 December 1993.   While in police custody the applicant was not assisted by a doctor. A medical examination   carried out on her release from police custody by a doctor from the Institute of Forensic   Medicine did not reveal any sign of violence. On the same day the applicant was taken before   the public prosecutor, who ordered her detention pending trial. The applicant then asserted   that she had been ill-treated while in police custody and that her deposition had been written   under duress.   On 30 December 1993 and again on 17 January 1994 Ms Tepe underwent two further   medical examinations at which she was found to have pains in her shoulders and arms, a loss   of feeling in the shoulders, chest pains, pains at her waist and in one leg, and a loss of   strength in one leg. At the third examination Ms Tepe was found in addition to have areas of   old bruising on her right elbow and left shoulder, a loss of feeling and pins and needles in   both arms and pain throughout her body.   - 7 -   In July 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint against the police officers in whose charge she   had been detained in which she alleged that she had been forced to sign a statement prepared   by the police and that she had been subjected to hanging and electric shocks. The officers   concerned were then prosecuted, but acquitted by the Istanbul Assize Court for lack of   evidence. Proceedings instituted as a result of another complaint by the applicant, about the   length of her detention in police custody, were discontinued.   On 26 November 1996 the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment by the Istanbul National   Security Court for membership of an illegal armed organisation.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the   Convention, the applicant maintained that she had been subjected to ill-treatment and even   torture while in police custody. She further complained, under Article 5 (right to liberty and   security) of the Convention, of the unlawfulness and length of her detention in police   custody.   The Court noted that Ms Tepe had not been medically examined at the beginning of her   detention and had not had access to a lawyer or doctor of her choice while in police custody.   After release from police custody she had had three medical examinations which had resulted   in contradictory reports. In the absence of any explanation by the Government for the   discrepancies, the Court concluded that the first examination, in which no signs of violence   had been found on the applicant’s person, could not have been properly performed.   Moreover, it had not been asserted by anyone that the signs of violence found on the   applicant’s body could have predated her arrest.   The Court emphasised that a State is responsible for any person in detention, who is in a   vulnerable situation while in the charge of police officers, and that the authorities have a duty   to protect such a person. In the present case the Government had not given any explanation of   the cause of the marks found on the applicant, who had been held in police custody for 15   days, during which time she had not been allowed to see a lawyer, doctor, relative or friend.   The Court also reiterated that the acquittal of police officers suspected of inflicting ill-   treatment did not absolve the State of its responsibility under the Convention.   In the light of the above circumstances, and in the absence of a plausible explanation by the   Government, the Court considered that the symptoms noted in the second and third medical   reports had been the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. It   accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.   As to the complaint of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the Court noted that the   parties disagreed about the date on which the applicant had been taken into police custody.   As there was no evidence in the file capable of corroborating Ms Tepe’s allegations, the   Court took the view that her deprivation of liberty had lasted 15 days without her being   brought before a judge. It noted that her detention had been in conformity with the statutory   provisions applicable at the material time. However, referring to its case-law, it held that   detention in police custody for a period of 15 days without judicial supervision failed to   satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. It accordingly held unanimously   that there had been a violation of that provision.   - 8 -   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant   EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,780 for costs and expenses. (The   judgment is available only in French.)   Violation Article 3   (8) Esen v. Turkey (no. 29484/95)   (9) Yaz v. Turkey (no. 29485/95)   Allegation of ill-treatment while in police custody   Esen v. Turkey   Hakime Esen is a Turkish national who was born in 1962.   Suspected of being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), she was arrested by   the police on 14 December 1993 and taken into police custody at the headquarters of the   Istanbul security police. The public prosecutor ordered police custody to be extended until   December 1993. On that date she was examined by a doctor, who noted the presence of a   bruise 3 cm by 2 cm in area and a small swelling on the right arm near the shoulder. On the   same day she was questioned by the public prosecutor and placed in detention pending trial.   On 29 December 1993 and again on 17 January 1994 Mrs Esen underwent two further   medical examinations at which she was found to have pains in her neck, back, right shoulder,   right arm and ribcage. The doctors’ reports also mentioned lesions and bruises on her back   and right arm, a marked loss of movement in the right hand, loss of feeling in the right arm   and pains on flexion of the hands and wrists.   The applicant was prosecuted for participation in the terrorist activities of the PKK. In July   she lodged a complaint in which she alleged that she had been ill-treated by the police   officers in whose charge she had been detained. In July 1995 they were acquitted by the   Istanbul Assize Court for lack of evidence.   Yaz v. Turkey   Oya Yaz is a Turkish national who was born in 1969.   Suspected of being a member of the PKK and of lending that organisation aid and assistance,   she was arrested on 11 December 1993 and taken into police custody at the headquarters of   the Istanbul security police. The public prosecutor ordered police custody to be extended until   December 1993. On that date she was examined by a doctor, who found no signs of   violence on her person. On the same day she complained to the public prosecutor that she had   been ill-treated and that her confessions had been obtained by duress. She was then placed in   detention pending trial and transferred to Istanbul remand prison.   On 30 December 1993 and again on 14 January 1994 Ms Yaz underwent two further medical   examinations at which she was found to have pains in her shoulders, neck, back and armpits,   among other places. The doctors’ reports also mentioned oedemata of the thorax and feet,   bruising on the soles of the feet, swellings on the arms, hands and legs, and loss of movement   of the shoulders and arms in particular.   - 9 -   In July 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint, alleging that she had been ill-treated by the   police officers in whose charge she had been detained. They were acquitted by the Istanbul   Assize Court in June 1996.   In these two cases the applicants maintained that while in police custody they had suffered   treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of   the Convention.   Referring to its case-law, the Court observed that when a person was injured in police   custody, while entirely under the control of police officers, it was for the Government to   provide a plausible explanation of the origins of the injuries and to produce evidence casting   doubt on the victim’s allegations, particularly if those allegations were backed up by medical   reports.   The Court noted that in both cases it had not been asserted by anyone that the signs of   violence found on the applicants’ bodies could have predated their arrest. The Government   had provided no explanation of the cause of the lesions found on the applicants’ persons,   whereas Ms Esen had been detained for 12 days and Ms Yaz for 15 days, during which time   neither of them had been allowed to see a lawyer. The Court also reiterated that the acquittal   of police officers suspected of inflicting ill-treatment did not absolve the State of its   responsibility under the Convention.   In the light of the above circumstances, and in the absence of a plausible explanation by the   Government, the Court considered that the symptoms noted in the medical reports had been   the result of treatment for which the Government bore responsibility. It accordingly held   unanimously that in these two cases there had been violations of Article 3 of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded EUR 17,718 to   Ms Esen and EUR 32,000 to Ms Yaz for non-pecuniary damage. It further awarded each of   them EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 616 which the Council of Europe had   paid them in legal aid. (The judgments are available only in French.)   (10) Özgür Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 42591/98)   Friendly settlement   Allegation of ill-treatment while in police custody   Özgür Kılıç is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Izmir. In the course of a   criminal investigation he was arrested by the police on 10 January 1997 and taken into   custody at the headquarters of the Izmir security police. On the same day a medical   examination revealed the existence of two wounds which had already healed on the   applicant’s arms, but the doctor did not find any sign of violence.   Early in the morning of 17 January 1997 Mr Kılıç was examined by a doctor, whose report   did not mention any signs of violence but did record the applicant’s statement that he had   been the victim of electric shock treatment. Following his medical examination the applicant   was placed in detention pending trial and transferred to the Bergama remand prison. Still on   January 1997, late in the evening, the applicant was once more examined by a doctor,   whose report spoke of various marks on the applicant’s body.   - 10 -   Mr Kılıç lodged a complaint, alleging that he had been ill-treated by the police officers in   whose custody he had been detained and by the gendarmes who had taken him to Bergama   remand prison. The investigation concerning the police officers ended with a ruling that they   had no case to answer; the proceedings against the gendarmes are pending before the   governor of Izmir province.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the   Convention, the applicant maintained that he had been beaten and subjected to ill-treatment   by the police officers in whose custody he had been detained and by the gendarmes who had   transferred him to Bergama remand prison.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to   receive EUR 27,000 for damage and for costs and expenses.   Moreover, the Turkish Government have made the following declaration: “The Government   of the Republic of Turkey regret the occurrence of individual cases, like this one, of ill-   treatment inflicted by the authorities on persons in police custody, notwithstanding the   existing Turkish legislation and the Government’s determination to prevent such acts. The   Government accept that inflicting torture or ill-treatment on prisoners constitutes in particular   a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. They undertake to issue the appropriate   instructions and to adopt all necessary measures to guarantee that the prohibition of ill-   treatment is complied with in future. They refer in that connection to the undertakings they   gave in the declaration made with regard to application no. 34382/97 and reiterate their   determination to implement them. They further note that the legal and administrative   measures recently adopted have made it possible to reduce the incidence of cases of ill-   treatment in circumstances similar to those of the present case. ...   The Government consider that supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of   Europe of the execution of the Court’s judgment in the present case and those given in the   similar cases concerning Turkey form an appropriate mechanism for guaranteeing a continual   improvement in the situation regarding human rights protection. They undertake in that   connection to continue their cooperation, which is necessary to attain that objective.” (The   judgment is available only in French.)   (11) Sünnetçi v. Turkey (no. 28632/95)   Friendly settlement   Allegation of torture while in police custody   Mahmut Sünnetçi, a Turkish national, was born in 1967 and lives in Germany.   On 22 August 1994 he was taken into police custody in Diyarbakır on suspicion of being a   member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). On 31 August 1994 he was interrogated   by police and confessed to his involvement in the PKK’s activities. On 13 September 1994 he   was charged with providing explosives to other members of the PKK, establishing its   provincial committee and bombing the premises of banks and of a political party. He was   acquitted by the Diyarbakır National Security Court on 22 December 1998.   Mr Sünnetçi complained, under Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading   treatment) of the Convention, that he had been tortured while in police custody.   - 11 -   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to   receive EUR 25,000 for any damage and for costs and expenses.   Moreover, the Government have also made the following declaration: “The Government   regret the occurrence, as in the present case, of individual cases of ill-treatment by the   authorities of persons detained notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of   the Government to prevent such actions. It is accepted that the recourse to ill-treatment of   detainees constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government undertake to   issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the prohibition   of such acts and the obligation to carry out effective investigations are respected in the future.   The Government refer in this connection to the commitments which they undertook in the   Declaration agreed on in Application no. 34382/97 and reiterate their resolve to give effect to   those commitments. They note that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted   which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of ill-treatment in circumstances similar   to those of the instant case as well as more effective investigations. ... (The judgment is   available only in English.)   (12) Y.F. v. Turkey (no. 24209/94)   Violation Article 8   Forced gynaecological examination   Y.F., a Turkish national, was born in 1951 and lives in Bingöl (Turkey). In October 1993 he   and his wife were taken into police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK   (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). Mrs F was held in police custody for four days. She alleged   that she was kept blindfolded and that police officers hit her with truncheons, verbally   insulted her and threatened to rape her. On 20 October 1993 she was examined by a doctor   and taken to a gynaecologist for a further examination. The police officers remained on the   premises while she was examined behind a curtain. On 23 March 1994 the applicant and his   wife were acquitted. On 19 December 1995 three police officers were charged with violating   Mrs F.’s private life by forcing her to undergo a gynaecological examination. They were   acquitted on 16 May 1996.   The applicant alleged that the forced gynaecological examination of his wife had breached   Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention.   The Court reiterated that it was open to the applicant, as a close relative of the victim, to raise   a complaint on her behalf, particularly having regard to her vulnerable position in the special   circumstances of this case. It considered that, given her vulnerability in the hands of the   authorities who had exercised full control over her during her detention, she could not be   expected to have put up resistance to the gynaecological examination. There had accordingly   been an interference with her right to respect for her private life. The Government had failed   to demonstrate the existence of a medical necessity or other circumstances defined by law.   While the Court accepted their argument that the medical examination of detainees by a   forensic medical doctor could be an important safeguard against false accusations of sexual   harassment or ill-treatment, it considered that any interference with a person’s physical   integrity had to be prescribed by law and required that person’s consent. As this had not been   the case here, the interference had not been in accordance with the law.   - 12 -   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention   and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage, to be held for his wife, and   EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation Article 6 § 1   (13) Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom (nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98)   Non-disclosure of prosecution evidence   Martin John Edwards and Michael Lewis are both British nationals. Mr Edwards was born in   and lives in Woking (Surrey). Mr Lewis was born in 1953 and lives in Tonbridge   (Kent).   On 9 August 1994, following a surveillance and undercover operation, Mr Edwards was   arrested in a van in the company of an undercover police officer. In the van was a briefcase   containing 4.83 kilograms of 50% pure heroin. On 7 April 1995 he was convicted of   possessing a Class A drug with intent to supply and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.   He appealed unsuccessfully.   On 25 July 1995 Mr Lewis was arrested by uniformed police officers in the car park of a   public house after he had shown two undercover police officers some counterfeit bank notes.   More counterfeit notes were found when his house was searched. On 12 November 1996 he   pleaded guilty to three charges of possession of counterfeit currency notes with the intention   of delivering them to another. He was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment.   In both cases an application by the prosecution to withhold material evidence had been   granted on the ground that it would not assist the defence and there were genuine public-   interest reasons for not disclosing it. The judge had also refused a request to exclude the   evidence of the undercover officers.   Both applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that they had been   deprived of a fair trial because they had been entrapped into committing offences by agents   provocateurs and the procedure followed by the domestic courts concerning non-disclosure   of evidence had been unfair.   The Court reasoned that it was essential for it to examine the procedure whereby the plea of   entrapment had been determined in each case, so as to ensure that the rights of the defence   had been adequately protected. In the present case the undisclosed evidence had related, or   might have related, to a question of fact decided by the trial judge (namely whether the   applicants had indeed been entrapped into committing the offences in question). Had the   defence been able to persuade the judge that the police had acted improperly, the prosecution   would in effect have had to be discontinued. The prosecution’s applications to withhold the   evidence had thus been of determinative importance to the applicants’ trials. Despite that, the   applicants had been denied access to the evidence and their lawyers had been unable to argue   the case for entrapment in full before the judge. Moreover, the judges who had rejected the   defence submissions on entrapment had already seen prosecution evidence that might have   been relevant to that issue.   In those circumstances, the procedure followed to determine the issues of disclosure of   evidence and entrapment had not complied with the requirements to provide adversarial   - 13 -   proceedings and equality of arms and had not incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the   interests of the accused. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just   satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained. It awarded each applicant EUR 22,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights   F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex   Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with   alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998   a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time   Commission and Court.