CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 11 juillet 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s98870B0 { width:70.1pt; display:inline-block } .sEE69EB82 { width:136.82pt; display:inline-block } .s9410DAEE { width:162.14pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82CB9C70 { width:122.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA281919 { width:151.47pt; display:inline-block } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s8C0F06CF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     368   11.7.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Italy, Denmark and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments of which only the friendly settlements are final: [1]   Section 1   The applicants in the following two Italian cases complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time). In Guazzone v. Italy the applicants also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   (1)     Capitanio v. Italy (application no. 28724/95)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 16,500 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 7,241.70 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Guazzone v. Italy (no. 39797/97)   Friendly settlement The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 6,000 is to be paid to each of the three applicants for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     (3)     Osu v. Italy (no. 36534/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Afolabi Osu, is a British national.   On 13 November 1988 his rented flat in Terontola, Perugia, was searched. He was arrested and charged with illegal possession of drugs.     During police questioning, he gave, as his contact address, the home of a couple of close friends. He was later charged with illegal possession of drugs but acquitted on the ground of lack of evidence. He subsequently moved to Germany without informing the Italian authorities of his new address, as required by Italian law. On an unspecified date the Public Prosecutor appealed against the judgment acquitting the applicant. The bailiff was unable, however, to serve the summons on the applicant because he was not living at the address given.   On 6 October 1989 the Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance judgment concerning the applicant and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment for illegal possession of drugs. The applicant, who had had no notice of the appeal proceedings, was not present at the hearing nor did he receive any notice of the appeal judgment or of the prison sentence passed on him. On 19 August 1995, when entering Italy on his return from holiday, the applicant was arrested and imprisoned. He was refused leave to appeal.   The applicant complained that he was unable to challenge the finding of guilt made in his absence by the Court of Appeal. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 3 (b) (right to adequate time for preparation of defence), (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) and (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,200 for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and 6,261 pounds sterling for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (4)     Amrollahi v. Denmark (no. 56811/00)   Violation Article 8 Davood Amrollahi is an Iranian citizen, born in 1966, and living in Viborg, Denmark.   In 1986 he started his military training in Iran. It is not clear whether he participated directly in the war between Iran and Iraq, but, on 25 April 1987 he deserted. He initially fled to Turkey, went to Greece and then Denmark, where he arrived on 20 August 1989 and applied for asylum. At that time, all asylum-seekers from Iran - who, after deserting from the army, had left their home country before the armistice between Iran and Iraq in the summer of 1988 - were granted a residence permit. On 12   October   1990 the applicant was granted a residence and work permit and, on 25   August   1994, a permanent residence permit.   In   1992 the applicant met a Danish woman, A., with whom he cohabited. They had a daughter on 16   October   1996, married on 23   September 1997 and had a son, born on 20   April   2001. A. also has a daughter, born in 1989 from a previous relationship, who lives with them, and with whom the applicant has a very close relationship. All three children have been raised according to Danish traditions. It appears that the applicant’s family broke off all relations with him in 1987 following his desertion from the army. In Denmark the applicant had been making a living as the owner of a pizzeria until the end of 1996. Since May 2000 he had been receiving welfare benefits and vocational training. A. works in a retirement home.   On 1   October   1997 the applicant was found guilty of drug trafficking, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and expulsion from Denmark with a life-long ban on his return.   On 17 December 1998 the applicant was due to be released on parole. Since he did not consent to deportation or to leave the country voluntarily, he was detained as from that date in accordance with the Aliens Act with a view to being repatriated. The immigration authorities found, on 13   January   1999, that the applicant would not risk persecution in Iran of a kind which could constitute a basis for his remaining in Denmark. He appealed unsuccessfully.   He was released from detention on 11   May   2000.   The applicant complained that, if deported, he would lose contact with his wife, children and stepdaughter as they cannot be expected to follow him to Iran. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for family life).   The Court observed that drugs had a devastating effect on people’s lives and that it was understandable for the authorities to show great firmness to those who actively contributed to the spread of that scourge. Even if the applicant had not previously been convicted, that did not detract from the seriousness and gravity of such a crime.   However, the Court found nothing to suggest that the applicant had maintained strong links, if any, with Iran, while he had to be considered as having strong ties with Denmark. The applicant’s wife had never been to Iran, did not understand Farsi and was not a Muslim. Besides being married to an Iranian man, she had no ties with the country. Even if it were not impossible for the applicant’s wife and children to live in Iran, it would, nevertheless, cause them obvious and serious difficulties. In addition, the Court recalled that A.’s daughter from a previous relationship, who had lived with A. since her birth in 1989, refused to move to Iran. Taking this fact into account as well, A. could not, in the Court’s opinion, be expected to follow the applicant to Iran. There was no indication either that the applicant and his wife could obtain authorisation to live in any other country but Iran. Accordingly, as a consequence of the applicant’s permanent exclusion from Denmark, the family will be separated, since it was effectively impossible for them to continue their family life outside Denmark.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that the expulsion of the applicant to Iran would be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention and that it was not required to apply Article 41 in this case. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 3   (5)     Özler v. Turkey (no. 25753/94)   Friendly settlement Ali Özler is a Turkish national, born in 1952 and living in Tunceli.   On 5 and 6 June 1992 he participated in a meeting organised by the Tunceli Human Rights Association where he made a speech concerning the problems of the Kurdish people and expressed his opinions on possible solutions.   On 3 May 1993 the Public Prosecutor at Kayseri State Security Court (“the State Security Court”) instituted criminal proceedings against him. In his indictment, the public prosecutor accused the applicant, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1991, of disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the State.   On 26 August 1993 the State Security Court found the applicant guilty of an offence under the Act and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 50,000,000 Turkish Liras (TRL). He appealed unsuccessfully against the judgment. Following amendments to the Act, the State Security Court re-examined his case. On   28 November 1998 it confirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of TRL 50,000,000. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he has been denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Kayseri State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further complained of violations of Articles 9 (freedom of thought), 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 7,000 is to be paid to the applicant for the damage sustained and for costs and expenses. Turkey has, moreover, made the following declaration: “...The Court’s rulings against Turkey in cases involving prosecutions under Article   312 of the Criminal Code and under Article   8 § 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act show that Turkish law and practice urgently need to be brought into line with the Convention’s requirements under Article 10 of the Convention. This is also reflected in the interference underlying the facts of the present case. The Government undertake to this end to implement all necessary reform of domestic law and practice in this area, as already outlined in the National Programme of 24 March 2001.     The Government refer also to the individual measures set out in Interim Resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 23   July 2001 (ResDH (2001) 106), which they will apply to the circumstances of cases such as the instant one. ...” (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: (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.