CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 mars 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s73C1915E { width:82.1pt; display:inline-block } .sBC43019D { width:170.14pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s5B3C5B5C { width:160.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s7DA86AF6 { width:185.57pt; display:inline-block } .s46008A90 { width:130.84pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   136 17.3.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Italy, Russia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Kljajić v. Croatia (application no 22681/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Mirko Kljajić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Karlovac (Croatia).   On 11 November 1991 business premises leased by the applicant in Karlovac were blown up by unknown persons. The applicant brought a claim for damages against the State.   The applicant complained that he had been denied access to a court in relation to his claim because the proceedings had been stayed pursuant to the 1996 Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a tribunal) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that, as a result of a legislative amendment, the applicant had not had his civil claim determined by the Croatian courts for seven and a half years, including a period of five years and six months after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Croatia; this amounted to a breach of his right of access to a court. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 3,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Accardo v. Italy (no. 62913/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Rosa Accardo, is an Italian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Torre del Greco (Italy).   The applicant owns a flat in Torre del Greco, which she had let. In a writ served on the tenant in 1987 she informed him that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term. She did not recover possession of her flat until March 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of the eviction proceedings. The Court also examined the case under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 8,000. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Gorokhov and Rusyayev v. Russia (no. 38305/02) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Dmitriy Ivanovich Gorokhov and Rostislav Vladimirovich Rusyayev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1952 and 1961 respectively and live in Moscow.   The applicants took part in the clean-up works at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. They were later registered as disabled and granted a special disability pension. They brought a civil action against the social security authorities, claiming that their pensions had not been properly calculated. In two judgments delivered in January and June 2001 they were awarded increases of 58% and 50% respectively of the amounts they had received in the relevant periods. The judgments were enforced in 1 November 2002.   The applicants complained of the failure over a lengthy period to enforce court judgments in their favour. They relied on Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the judgments in the applicants’ favour had not been enforced within a “reasonable time”. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In addition, the Court considered that the impossibility for the applicants to have the judgments enforced had interfered with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants EUR   900 each for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Tanıyan v. Turkey (no. 29910/96)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Necati Tanıyan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Artvin (Turkey).   The applicant is the owner of Yeni Politika , a daily newspaper published in Istanbul between 13 April 1995 and 16 August 1995. During these four months, confiscation orders were issued for 117 of the 126 issues published, either under the Prevention of Terrorism Act or under Article 312 of the Criminal Code. The applicant appealed against the orders on 21 occasions, each of the appeals being dismissed by Istanbul State Security Court.   The applicant relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 7,710 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 2 (loss of life)   Violation of Article 2 (inadequate investigation) Türkoğlu v. Turkey (no. 34506/97)   No violation of Article 5 The applicant is a Turkish national, Ms Hasene Türkoğlu. The facts of the case were disputed between the parties.   According to the applicant, her husband, Talat Türkoğlu, had been arrested and tried on several occasions in the past for political offences. Plain-clothes policemen used to keep him under surveillance. After her husband failed to return home from a trip in April 1996, she filed, over a period of nearly two years, petitions with several administrative and judicial bodies inquiring about her husband’s whereabouts, in vain. The applicant alleged that that the State security forces had abducted her husband, who had met his death at the hands of the State agents.   The Government maintained that the applicant’s claims were wholly unsubstantiated and that there were no indications that her husband had in fact been deprived of his liberty or killed by the Turkish authorities.   Relying on Article 2 of the Convention (right to life), the applicant claimed that her husband had been abducted and killed by agents of the State and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his disappearance and subsequent death.   The Court noted that the applicant’s allegation that the abduction of her husband had been carried out by the agents of the State was not supported by any cogent evidence. On the basis of the material in its possession, the Court considered that the actual circumstances in which the applicant’s husband disappeared remained a matter of speculation and assumption and that, accordingly, there was an insufficient evidentiary basis on which to conclude that the applicant’s husband had been, beyond reasonable doubt, killed by or with the connivance of State agents in the circumstances alleged by the applicant. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention on that account.   As regards the applicant’s allegation that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into her husband’s disappearance and subsequent death, the Court recalled that there was no proof that Talat Türkoğlu has been killed. However, the procedural obligations inherent in Article 2 also applied to cases where a person had disappeared in circumstances which might be regarded as life-threatening. In this respect, the more time that went by without any news of the person who had disappeared, the greater the likelihood that he or she had died. In the present case, an investigation had indeed been carried out into the disappearance and alleged death of the applicant’s husband. However, there had been important shortcomings in its conduct. In view of those shortcomings, the Court considered that the national authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicant’s husband. There had therefore been a breach of the State’s procedural obligation under Article 2.   As regards the applicant’s further allegation that her husband had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention, there was no factual basis on which to conclude that there had been such a violation.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention the Court awarded the applicant EUR   10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (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 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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.