003-4641688-5620640

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 017 (2014)   21.01.2014   Judgments concerning Italy, Portugal and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six judgments, of   which one (in italics) is a Committee judgment and is final. The others are Chamber judgments1 and   are not final.   One repetitive case2, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press   release. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Placì v. Italy (application no. 48754/11)   The applicant, Luigi Placì, is an Italian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Specchia (Italy). The   case concerned his conscription into compulsory military service despite his fragile state of mental   health. Following two examinations which found him fit for military service, he started his service in   June 1994. During the subsequent months he was subjected to several punishments for   inappropriate behaviour, including 24 days of confinement. Following his hospitalisation and   diagnosis with anxiety disorder, he was discharged due to unfitness in April 1995. His subsequent   request for damages, alleging that there was a causal link between his military service and his illness,   or alternatively that upon his conscription tests his pre-existent illness had gone unnoticed, was   rejected by the Ministry of Defence in a decision eventually upheld by the Supreme Administrative   Court in February 2011. Mr Placì complained in particular under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or   degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights of a lack of a proper assessment   of his state of health before conscription and about his conscription into military service with the   resulting training he had had to undergo and punishments that had been inflicted on him. Relying   further in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he alleged that the medical board which   provided crucial evidence in the proceedings for damages had lacked independence and that the   authorities had not disclosed key documents regarding his case.   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: 40,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 17,000 (costs and expenses)   Zhou v. Italy (no. 33773/11)*   The applicant, Jiaoqin Zhou, is a Chinese national who was born in 1968 and lives in Padua (Italy).   The case concerned the placement of her third child, a toddler, with a foster family. Having arrived in   Italy in 2000 with her partner and a four-year-old daughter, Ms Zhou gave birth in 2002 to a second   daughter. The two children were sent to their grandparents in China. In 2004 her partner left her   while she was pregnant with a third child, who was born in September of that year. Initially housed   in a mother-and-child centre, then in a State accommodation facility, Ms Zhou found employment.   As she was unable to look after her child alone, she was obliged to call on other people for   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.   assistance. In March 2007, without informing the social services, she entrusted her child to a couple   of elderly neighbours during her working hours. The State Prosecutor at the Youth Court was   informed of the situation by the social services, and in December 2007 he called for an adoption   procedure to be opened in respect of the child, since, in his view, the mother was unable to take   care of him. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the   Convention, Ms Zhou complained that her child had been placed in a foster family with a view to   adoption. She also complained that she had had no contact with her child for ten months.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 40,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5.655,83 (costs and expenses)   Gramaxo Rozeira v. Portugal (no. 21976/09)*   The applicant, Gustavo Jorge Gramaxo Rozeira, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1978 and   lives in Porto (Portugal). The case concerned the failure to communicate a document in the course of   proceedings before the Constitutional Court. In March 2002 Mr Gramaxo Rozeira was recruited as a   lecturer by the Cávado and Vale do Ave Polytechnic Institute for an initial one-year contract,   renewable for two-year periods. In March 2005 the Institute informed the applicant that his contract   had expired, and that the Institute’s scientific board had not agreed to re-appoint him. The ordinary   appeals lodged by Mr Gramaxo Rozeira before the administrative courts were unsuccessful. He then   lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court, alleging that Article 12 of the Staff Regulations for   teachers in polytechnic higher education was unconstitutional. In the course of the proceedings, a   letter from the Head of the Prime Minister’s Private Office, responding to a request for information   from the Constitutional Court on the disputed issue of whether or not trade unions had taken part in   drawing up Article 12 of the Staff Regulations, was never transmitted to the applicant, or to the   respondent party. In February 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal,   holding that Article 12 of the Staff Regulations was not unconstitutional. Mr Gramaxo Rozeira   submitted that the non-disclosure of the letter sent by the Prime Minister’s Private Office to the   Constitutional Court, and the fact that it had been impossible for him to respond to it, had infringed   his right as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: The Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary and non-   pecuniary damage and awarded him 2,500 EUR in respect of costs and expenses   İhsan Ay v. Turkey (no. 34288/04)   The applicant, İhsan Ay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   The case concerned his dismissal, in July 1999, from his post as a teacher at a private tutoring centre   attached to the Diyarbakır Governor’s office, where he had worked since December 1985. The   Governor’s office terminated his contract on the strength of a security investigation conducted into   him. His claim challenging the dismissal was eventually rejected in a decision upheld by the Supreme   Administrative Court in January 2004. Relying in substance on Article 8 (right to respect for private   life), Mr Ay complained that he had been dismissed on the basis of a previous criminal conviction for   having disseminated communist propaganda, under provisions of the former Criminal Code which   had later been repealed, and despite the fact that his criminal record had been erased following the   repeal. He further relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), complaining   that the length of the proceedings before the administrative courts had been unreasonable.   Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 8,600 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Perihan and Mezopotamya Basın Yayın A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 21377/03)   The applicants in this case are Zübeyir Perihan, a Turkish national born in 1966 and living in Istanbul,   and Mezopotamya Basın Yayın A. Ş. (or “Mesopotamia Publishing”), a company which was registered   in Turkey. Mr Perihan was the company’s director general. The case concerned the company’s   dissolution in 2001. Following police searches of three of its local branch offices and the confiscation   of allegedly illegal publications, including material allegedly used for propaganda in favour of the   illegal Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Ministry of Industry and Trade brought proceedings with a   view to the dissolution of Mesopotamia Publishing on account of its activities against public order.   By a court order of October 2001, eventually upheld by the Court of Cassation in January 2003, the   company was dissolved. The company complained that its dissolution had violated its rights, in   particular under Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Violation of Article 10 in respect of the applicant company Mezopotamya Basın Yayın A. Ş.   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) to the Mezopotamya Basın Yayın A.Ş. company   Repetitive case   The following case raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Mehmet Ali Polat v. Turkey (no. 58405/10)*   In this case, the applicant, who had been arrested in Kayseri as part of a series of police operations   against an illegal organisation, complained about the length of his pre-trial detention and alleged   that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time. He relied, in particular, on Article 5 § 3   (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1   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] | 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