CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 juin 2001

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCF78AD9B { width:62.08pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     461   26.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Norway and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments (only Dindaroğlu and others v. Turkey is final [1] ):   Section 1   (1)     Dindaroğlu and others v. Turkey (application no. 26519/95) Friendly settlement The applicants, all Turkish nationals, are: Mehmet Dindaroğlu, H. Ömer Dindaroğlu, İsmail Dindaroğlu, Hacer Dindaroğlu, H. Ahmet Altekin, Nevzat Altekin, Satıa Altekin, Zeynep Altekin, Hamide Altekin and Ayşe Altekin. They complained about the length of a civil action (lasting almost 11 years and six months) they brought against the Turkish Electricity Company (TEK) following the electrocution of one of their relatives. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which a global sum of 40,000 French francs (FRF) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and FRF 15,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Section 3   (2)     Beck v. Norway (application no. 26390/95)   No violation Article 6 § 1 Gunnar Beck, a Norwegian-Swiss national, complained about the length (over seven years and seven months) of criminal proceedings against him in relation to fraud charges.   The case concerned a business, set up by the applicant and three associates, consisting of two limited liability companies, founded in 1985, Cosmesin Laboratorieprodukter A/S (“ Cosmesin ”) and Geneve A/S (“ Geneve ”). According to the Norwegian courts, the business was a fraudulent pyramid scheme. Cosmesin sold freeze-dried concentrates of lactic acid bacteria (bought for 100 Norwegian kroner (NOK) per 0.5-gramme bag) to Geneve at NOK 240 per bag, which re-sold them for NOK 330 per bag to cultivators, and, after 15 weeks, bought back the cultivated products for NOK   625.   On 27 January 1987 the Consumer Ombudsman ( Forbrukerombudet ) filed a complaint   against Geneve and Cosmesin for defrauding several thousand investors. The companies went into bankruptcy in February 1987. Between February and April 1987 the police received 335 complaints from cultivators in various parts of Norway. Further complaints were made in January 1988 and January 1989 respectively by a major bank and the tax authorities.   On 19 November 1992 the City Court convicted the applicant of serious fraud (in relation to amounts totalling approximately NOK 25,000,000), of unlawfully drawing up cheques (in amounts totalling almost NOK   4,500,000) on behalf of an insolvent company, and having disregarded statutory obligations relating to book-keeping. The court noted that the offences for which the applicant was convicted were punishable by up to nine   years’ imprisonment. However, taking into consideration, among other things, the delays in the investigations, the court sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that, although over four   years and six months had elapsed from the opening of the criminal investigation at the end of January 1987 until the institution of proceedings before the City Court on 4   September   1991, the case was very complex. The Court observed, among other things, that the investigation concerned over a thousand complaints about a large-scale, fraudulent business, based on a sophisticated pyramid scheme involving several thousand people and engaging the police in four different countries. Parallel to the criminal proceedings, for which oral evidence was taken for 20 days at the City Court, there were also bankruptcy and tax proceedings.     However, in the Court’s view, this did not sufficiently explain why it took nearly two years from the issue of the formal indictment in August 1989, when – according to the Government – the investigation was essentially completed, until the institution of proceedings before the City Court in September 1991. The Court noted that the City Court had observed that the change of investigators in the case had played a key role in prolonging the proceedings. It remained to be decided, therefore, whether the applicant could continue to claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 on the grounds of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Noting that the City Court expressly upheld the substance of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time, the Court was satisfied that the applicant was afforded adequate redress for the alleged violation. Despite the gravity of the offences in question, the applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, which was at the lower end of the scale of punishment authorised by the relevant penal provisions and appreciably less than in comparable cases.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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.