EVRM-Hof veroordeelt Moldavië, Polen, Roemenië en Turkije voor ongeregeldheden in de rechtsgang (en)

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1].

Berkouche v. France (application no 71047/01) No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3

The applicant, Taïeb Berkouche, is a French national who was born in 1966. He is currently detained in Val-de-Reuil Prison (France).

On 9 July 1996, during a search of his parents' home in connection with drug-trafficking proceedings, a number of shots were fired and the applicant was injured. Later that day an inspection of the scene was carried out and the gendarmes involved were questioned. One of them stated that he had returned fire at the applicant with the sole aim of protecting his colleague, who had already been fired at twice. The applicant was not questioned for health reasons. On 8 August 1996 the investigating judge placed the applicant under formal investigation for the attempted murder of two gendarmes.

In a letter of 11 September 1997 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against a person or persons unknown, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, alleging attempted murder and aiding and abetting attempted murder.

On 25 October 1999, at the hearing in the Assize Court, the applicant requested an adjournment so that the proceedings against him and the proceedings opened as a result of his complaint and civil-party application could be conducted at the same time. The Assize Court refused the applicant's request.

On 27 October 1999 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty of attempted murder without aggravating circumstances and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment.

The applicant alleged that the proceedings against him for attempted murder and those instituted following his complaint and civil-party application had been unfair, particularly on account of the Assize Court's refusal to adjourn the examination of the first set of proceedings in order to deal with both sets at the same time. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights observed that, in the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant had had the opportunity to defend himself but had chosen not to request a fresh or a supplementary expert opinion under the statutory procedure and within the prescribed time. In the second set of proceedings he had been able to submit argument in support of his civil claims. There had therefore been an objective and fair examination of his complaint. In view of that conclusion, irrespective of any reservations there might have been as to the decision to conduct the two sets of proceedings separately, the Court considered that the proceedings in the present case, taken as a whole, had not infringed the applicant's right to a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Dumbraveanu v. Moldova (no. 20940/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The applicant, Alexandru Dumbraveanu, is a Moldovan national, born in 1968 and living in Chişinău.

He complained about the Moldovan authorities' failure to enforce a judgment pronounced on 8 November 2000 - awarding him 111,240 Moldovan lei (approximately 10,500 euros (EUR)) - until 11 September 2003. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.

The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,400 for pecuniary damage, EUR 1,360 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 390 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Sildedzis v. Poland (no. 45214/99) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The applicant, Egon Sildedzis, was a Polish national. He died on 17 January 2004. On 28 April 2004 his widow and daughter asked to continue the proceedings before the Court on the applicant's behalf.

The applicant claimed that he was prevented from using his car for a period of over two years, while the administrative authority concerned refused to register the car, and that his business suffered financial losses as a result. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

The European Court of Human Rights found that the Polish regulations on registration of cars were not sufficiently clear to provide adequate protection against arbitrary interference by the public authorities with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant's possessions.

While the regulations pursued the legitimate aim of preventing the registration of stolen vehicles, the Court observed that the applicant was never suspected of having stolen the car or of having forged the vehicle's identification or chassis numbers or of any fraudulent use of the car. It was not in dispute that he was a buyer in good faith and that he purchased it at an auction organised by the Tax Office. The applicant could therefore reasonably expect that the origin of the car was legitimate. In addition, at the time of the purchase, the applicant was not warned of any possible problems that might arise in connection with the registration of the vehicle. The interference with the applicant's right to property was therefore disproportionate.

The Court held, unanimously, that the applicant's heirs had standing to continue the proceedings and that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Buzescu v. Romania (no. 61302/00) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The applicant, Petru Buzescu, is a Romanian national, born in 1951 and living in Bucharest.

He was a member of the Constanţa Bar and practised as a lawyer in Romania until 1981, when he left for the United States. As a result, he lost Romanian citizenship and his membership of the Constanţa Bar was cancelled. In 1985 the applicant became a member of the New York Bar and practised there as an attorney until 1991.

In March 1991, after his Romanian citizenship had been restored, the applicant returned to live in Romania and, on 8 May, Constanţa Bar annulled its decision to remove the applicant's name from the Bar roll. From 1991 onwards the applicant advised several multinational companies investing in Romania.

On 19 May 1996 he was again registered by the Constanţa Bar on its list of practising lawyers. However, on 27 June 1996, the Romanian Union of Lawyers (Uniunea Avocaţilor din România, the UAR) annulled his registration on the ground that the Constanţa Bar had acted ultra vires in taking its decision of 8 May 1991. The applicant appealed against the UAR's decision of 27 June 1996 before Bucharest Court of Appeal and subsequently the Supreme Court of Justice. His appeals were dismissed.

The applicant complained about the decision of 27 June 1996 and the subsequent administrative proceedings. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained, among other things, that the UAR's decision had been adopted without a hearing, that he had not been notified of the decision and that courts had failed to deal with the substance of the dispute. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he also complained that the annulment of his registration led to the loss of part of his clientele and hence to a loss of income

The European Court of Human Rights found, among other things, that the Romanian courts did not deal with the applicant's main arguments and that, taken as a whole, the proceedings had not been fair. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Finding that the annulment of the applicant's registration was disproportionate, the Court further held, unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 12,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Violation of Article 5 § 3

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Dereci v. Turkey (no. 77845/01)

Gıyasettin Altun v. Turkey (no. 73038/01)

The applicants, Abdullah Dereci and Gıyasettin Altun, are Turkish nationals, born in 1950 and 1965 and living in Hatay and Muş (Turkey) respectively.

Both applicants complained that their detention on remand and the criminal proceedings against them exceeded a reasonable time, in breach of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1.

On 10 February 1994 and 11 May 1994 respectively the applicants were arrested and placed in police custody by officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, on suspicion of involvement in the activities of illegal armed organisations. On 24 February 1994 and 19 May 1994 they were detained on remand. On 17 May 1994 and 1 June 1994 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants who were suspected of, among other things, membership of an illegal armed organisation. In the course of the criminal proceedings against them the applicants made numerous requests for their release.

On 12 April 2001 Mr Altun was ultimately convicted as charged by Istanbul State Security Court and sentenced to 12 years and six months' imprisonment. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 8 October 2001. On 4 June 2001 Mr Dereci was released pending trial.

The European Court of Human Rights considered that the periods for which the applicants had been held in detention, given the stereotyped reasoning of the courts, had not been shown to be justified. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that, in both cases, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.

Concerning Article 6 § 1, the Court observed that the criminal proceedings had lasted nearly seven years and five months in Gıyasettin Altun and that the proceedings had already lasted nearly 11 years and three months and were still pending in the case Dereci. Having regards to its case-law on the subject, the Court considered that the length of those proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both cases.

The Court awarded Mr Dereci and Mr Altun EUR 9,000 and EUR 5,000 respectively for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,200 and EUR 1,000 respectively for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)

Ekşinozlugil v. Turkey (no. 42667/98) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The applicants, Atilla and Mine Ekşinozlugil, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1948 and 1950 respectively and live in Istanbul.

Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained, among other things, of the depreciation in the value of additional compensation paid by the National Highways Authority following the expropriation of land belonging to them. In that connection, they argued that the interest for late payment was inadequate in view of the very high rate of inflation in Turkey.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that, in view of that finding, it was unnecessary to examine the other complaints. It held unanimously that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, and awarded EUR 52,885 to Atilla Ekşinozlugil and EUR 42,015 to Mine Ekşinozlugil for pecuniary damage, together with EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Intiba v. Turkey (no. 42585/98) No violation of Article 6 § 1

The applicant, Ferit İntiba, is a Turkish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Istanbul. He is a businessman.

On 12 January 1990, following an investigation in which several expert reports were submitted, the public prosecutor sought the applicant's conviction for fraud.

On 30 April 1997 the Assize Court convicted the applicant in absentia of aiding and abetting embezzlement and sentenced him to 11 years and eight months' imprisonment and a fine. Its judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 10 December 1997.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the criminal proceedings against him (more than seven years and 11 months).

Making an overall assessment of the length of the proceedings, having regard to the complexity of the case, the number of defendants, the conduct of the applicant, what was at stake for him in the dispute, the number of levels of jurisdiction and the fact that the judicial authorities had proceeded at a steady pace, the Court considered that the proceedings had not gone beyond what could be considered reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1

(independence and impartiality)

No violation of Article 6 § 1

(length of proceedings)

Özden v. Turkey (no. 42141/98)

The applicant, Ahmet Özden, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Batman (Turkey).

On 31 March 1993 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan) and was taken into police custody at the Batman gendarmerie station. He was questioned there until 7 April 1993.

On 29 December 1995 the State Security Court found the applicant guilty of assisting the PKK and sentenced him to three years and nine months' imprisonment. It also disqualified him from holding public office for three years.

The applicant submitted that the State Security Court which had tried and convicted him had not been an "independent and impartial tribunal" capable of guaranteeing him a fair trial, as one of its members was a military judge. He also complained that the proceedings before that court had been unfair, firstly because of the excessive length of his trial and secondly because his defence rights had been infringed as he had not had the assistance of a lawyer or an interpreter throughout the trial. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance) and (e) (right to assistance of an interpreter).

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the State Security Court's lack of independence and impartiality. Having regard to its findings of a violation under this head, the Court considered that it was not necessary to carry out a separate examination of the applicant's allegations of an infringement of his defence rights.

The Court also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings in question, which had been conducted at two levels of jurisdiction.

It held unanimously that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Tiryakioğlu v. Turkey (no. 45436/99) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The applicants, Emin Bülent Tiryakioğlu and Nuriye Tiryakioğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1957 and 1934 respectively and live in Istanbul.

They submitted various complaints concerning the expropriation on 20 August 1996 of land they owned in Bakırköy (Istanbul). The main complaint concerned the depreciation in the value of the additional compensation for the expropriation which the local council had paid after a delay, since the interest for late payment had been inadequate in view of the very high rate of inflation in Turkey. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. It awarded the applicants EUR 16,300 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for co costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Tunç v. Turkey (no. 54040/00) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The applicant, Abdurrahman Tunç, is a Turkish national who lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).

He complained of the failure to execute a judicial decision in which the National Water Board had been ordered to pay him additional compensation for the expropriation of a property in Çınar.

He complained that he had been deprived of his possessions on account both of the failure to enforce the decision and of the continuing depreciation in the value of the compensation since the interest for late payment was inadequate in view of the rate of inflation. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,521 for pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

***

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

Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)

Emma Hellyer (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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court's judgments.

[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.