CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 avril 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sFB6C6D73 { width:148.8pt; display:inline-block } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sFE576133 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ADA7BF8 { width:162.82pt; display:inline-block } .sB9746F99 { width:87.47pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sE4FC1787 { width:135.47pt; display:inline-block } .s99F7FB72 { width:120.14pt; display:inline-block } .s58F960FF { width:56.14pt; display:inline-block } .s1481E004 { width:143.46pt; display:inline-block } .sB506F85D { width:133.46pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     190   9.4.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France, Hungary, Romania and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly settlements are final [1] :   SECTION 2   (1)     T.A. v. Turkey (application no. 26307/95)   Struck out (2)     Toğcu v. Turkey (no. 27601/95)   T.A. v. Turkey - T.A. is a Turkish national whose complaint concerns the disappearance of his brother, Mehmet Salim A., a farmer living in Ambar, a village in the Bismil district of south-east Turkey. His brother was abducted in August 1994 by two unidentified persons - allegedly plain-clothes police officers. The applicant complained of the unlawfulness and excessive length of his brother’s detention, of the ill-treatment and acts of torture to which his brother was allegedly subjected in detention, and of the failure to provide his brother with the necessary medical care in detention. The applicant further complained that his brother was deprived of the services of a lawyer and of any contact with his family. He relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and ill-treatment), 5   (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18   (limitation on use of restrictions of rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Toğcu v. Turkey - Hüseyin Toğcu, a Turkish national, complained about the disappearance of his son, Önder, the manager of a hotel in Diyarbakır. He alleged that Önder Hüseyin was taken into unacknowledged detention on or about 29 November 1994, and that the Turkish authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into alleged police involvement in his son’s disappearance.   He relied on Articles 2, 3, 5, 13, 14 and 18. In both cases the Turkish Government offered to pay ex gratia 70,000 pounds sterling for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs. The Government also made a declaration stating that it regretted the actions which had led to the applications, in particular the disappearances in question and the anguish caused to their families. “It is accepted that unrecorded deprivations of liberty and insufficient investigations into allegations of disappearance, such as in the present case[s], constitute violations of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures with a view to ensuring that all deprivations of liberty are fully and accurately recorded by the authorities and that effective investigations into alleged disappearances are carried out in accordance with their obligations under the Convention. The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place... ” Both applicants asked the Court to reject the Government’s initiative, arguing that the terms of the declaration were unsatisfactory.   T.A. argued that, among other things, it contained no admission that there had been any Convention violation concerning his application or that Mehmet Salim had been abducted by State agents and that he must be presumed to have died, that it contained no undertaking to investigate the circumstances of the case and that the compensation would be paid ex gratia. Hüseyin Toğcu argued, among other things , that the   declaration failed to mention the disappearance of Önder Toğcu as a result of State action or the Government’s failure to disclose certain documents requested by the Court, which might have been decisive in establishing the facts and the Court’s determination of the merits of the case.   In both cases, having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the scope and extent of the various undertakings referred to therein and the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. The Court decided, by six votes to one, to strike out both cases. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (3)     Z.Y. v. Turkey (no. 27532/95)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Ms Z.Y., is a Turkish national. She was born in 1971 and lives in Izmir.   On 28 October 1992 she was shot by a police officer while being arrested for sticking up posters for an illegal organisation, the TIKB (The Turkish Union of Revolutionary Communists). On the same day a medical examination carried out at the request of the Izmir security police showed that she had sustained a gunshot wound to the leg and had a number of bruises. She lodged two complaints against the police officer who had injured her. The public prosecutor ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to look into the first complaint, while proceedings on the second were discontinued at the request of the Izmir governor’s office.   The applicant complained under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the violence to which she was subjected at the time of her arrest and while in police custody.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 30,489.80 euros (EUR) is to be paid for any damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Anghelescu v. Romania (no. 29411/95)       Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Stefan Anghelescu is a Romanian national who was born in 1928 and lives in Wiesbaden (Germany).   In 1994 the applicant’s mother brought repossession proceedings to recover property which the State had nationalised in 1950 by virtue of Decree no. 92/1950. She pleaded her husband’s civil-servant status and the fact that he had been a pensioner at the time, both factors which excluded him from the scope of Decree no. 92/1950. In a judgment of 7 July 1994 the Bucharest Court of First Instance allowed her claim and upheld her right of ownership. She then made over the property to the applicant by deed of gift. On 31 May 1995, on an application to set aside by the Attorney-General, the Supreme Court of Justice, although it had summoned only the applicant’s mother and had refused all applications for an adjournment, allowed the application and quashed all previous judicial decisions in the case.   The applicant instituted new repossession proceedings in 1998. The Bucharest Court of First Instance allowed his claim and the mayor of Bucharest ordered the restitution of the property apart from some flats which had been sold by the State to third parties in 1996. The applicant then brought proceedings to have the sales in question declared null and void and to evict the tenants. Some of these proceedings are still pending in the domestic courts.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to recognise the courts’ jurisdiction to try a repossession case and of its refusal to allow him to participate in the proceedings. He further complained that the above judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as set forth in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that, in setting aside a judgment which had become final, the Supreme Court of Justice infringed the principle of legal certainty and hence the applicant’s right to a fair trial. It also considered that the failure to recognise the courts’ jurisdiction to try a repossession case in itself infringed the right of access to a court. The Court noted, lastly, that the fact that the Supreme Court of Justice refused to summon the applicant to appear before it, on the ground that the proceedings would show that his presence was not required, was an argument which prejudged the decision on the merits and deprived the applicant of the opportunity of defending his right.   Noting that the applicant acquired a right of ownership following a deed of gift by a person whose title to the property has been recognised by the courts and that, despite this, he was deprived of enjoyment of the property, the Court considered that the fair balance was upset and that the applicant had born and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden.   Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of a fair trial and the refusal of a right of access to a court. It also concluded unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and awarded the applicant EUR 18,755 for pecuniary damage. By six votes to one, it awarded EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 36,567 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (5)     Özcan v. Turkey (no. 29856/96)       Friendly settlement Mehmet Özcan is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin. He was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul.   On 11 July 1995 he was arrested and taken into police custody at the headquarters of the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul security police. The report on his arrest mentioned use of force to overcome his resistance to the arresting officers and his possession of documents emanating from an illegal organisation – the ENRK (The Kurdistan National Liberation Front, military wing of the PKK). He remained in police custody until 24 July 1995, when his release was ordered by a judge of the Istanbul National Security Court. On the same day, at the request of the Istanbul security police, the applicant was examined by a doctor, who reported the presence of various lesions on his body. Two subsequent medical reports indicated that the applicant was suffering from symptoms which might have been caused by his being suspended by the arms (also known as a “Palestinian hanging”), thus corroborating the applicant’s allegations that he had been subjected to that type of treatment six times while in police custody.   The applicant complained in particular under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the ill-treatment to which he was subjected while in police custody. He further relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) regarding the length of his detention in police custody.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 30,489.80 is to be paid for any damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (6)     Erdös v. Hungary (no. 38937/97)       Violation Article 6 § 1 Zoltan Erdös, a Hungarian national (who died in 1999, but whose son has continued the application as his father’s heir) complained under Article 6 § 1 that the civil proceedings to which he had been a party and which had begun in October 1984 and ended with a judgment of the Supreme Court in February 2000, had been excessively lengthy.   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (7)     Mangualde Pinto v. France (no. 43491/98)   No violation Article 6 § 1 Fernando Magualde Pinto is a Portuguese national who was born in 1942 and lives in Lourdes.   A few months after being taken on as a night watchman, the applicant was dismissed for incapability. Complaining of unfair dismissal, he appealed on 21 December 1992 to the Employment Tribunal, which, after a number of adjournments requested by the parties, announced that the proceedings had lapsed on account of the applicant’s failure to attend the hearing. At the applicant’s request, the case was placed on the list once more, but the Employment Tribunal dismissed his claim on 9 December 1996. The applicant then gave notice of an appeal on points of law. On 11 March 1999 the President of the Court of Cassation ruled that he had forfeited the right to appeal, in particular because he had failed to supply a statement of the grounds of appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicant complained that the proceedings to which he was a party were excessively lengthy (six years, two months and twenty-one days for two levels of jurisdiction).   The Court noted that some delays in dealing with the case were due to successive adjournments requested by the parties, but that matters were also delayed because the proceedings lapsed on account of the applicant’s failure to attend. Although it considered a total period of six years to be quite long, the Court did not find it unreasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case and, accordingly, concluded unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (8)     Marcel v. France (no. 44791/98)   Friendly settlement Guy Marcel is a French national who was born in 1950 and lives in Marseilles.   On 9 May 1990 and again on 20 September 1990 he applied to the Employment Tribunal seeking payment for overtime and the reclassification of his resignation as dismissal. The proceedings ended on 8 June 1998 with a judgment in which the Montpellier Court of Appeal, to which the case had been remitted by the Court of Cassation, held that the applicant had been dismissed without good cause.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) the applicant complained that the proceedings to which he was a party were excessively lengthy.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 5,322.72 is to be paid for any damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (9)     Cisse v. France (no. 51346/99)   No violation Article 11 Madjiguene Cisse is a Senegalese national. She was born in 1951 and lives in Dakar (Senegal).   She was the spokeswoman for a group of aliens without residence permits and from June 1996 to August 1996 occupied St Bernard’s Church in Paris along with some 200 other illegal immigrants. The aim of the occupation, known as the “St Bernard’s sans papiers ” movement, was to focus attention on the difficulties encountered by aliens in obtaining a review of their immigration status in France. To that end, ten members of the group went on hunger strike.   On 22 August 1996 the Paris Police Commissioner made an order for the evacuation of everyone present on the premises on the ground that the occupation was unconnected with worship and also because of the poor sanitary conditions and the serious risks to health, peace, safety and public order. The police evacuated the premises the following day and stopped all the occupiers of the church for questioning. A number of them were detained and subsequently deported. The applicant did not have a residence permit and was charged with entering and staying in France illegally and given a two-months’ suspended sentence. The Paris Court of Appeal upheld her conviction and made an order excluding her from French territory for three years. The applicant’s appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 4 June 1998.   The applicant complained under Article 11 (freedom of assembly) that her right to freedom of peaceful assembly with other aliens was infringed.   The Court considered that the evacuation of the church amounted to an interference with the exercise of the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly, but that this interference was prescribed by the 1905 Act on the Separation of Church and State. It also found that the interference pursued a legitimate aim: the prevention of disorder.   The Court further noted that after the church had been occupied for two months by aliens – including the applicant – who were staying in France without valid residence permits, their presence there, although peaceful and not disruptive of public order or of the rites of worship performed by churchgoers, had given rise to a situation in which the hunger strikers’ health had deteriorated and sanitary conditions had become seriously affected. In the circumstances, the Court acknowledged that it might have been necessary to restrict the exercise of the applicant’s right of assembly, although it regretted the sudden and indiscriminate manner in which the police intervened. The presence of the applicant and the other aliens had been of sufficient symbolic and evidential weight for the interference, after the long period in question, not to appear excessive in this case.   In the circumstances, the Court found that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of assembly was not disproportionate and held unanimously that there had not been a breach of Article 11. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (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. [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.