CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 janvier 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s553B90E2 { width:89.43pt; display:inline-block } .sB353FDC3 { width:66.78pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4EB8F4CC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:20pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB8D8EE6B { width:23.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8316975 { width:142.81pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     060   30.1.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Bulgaria, Italy and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final [1] :   Section 1   (1)     Candela v. Italy (application no. 35997/97)   Friendly settlement Liliana Candela, an Italian national, complained about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 8,000 euros (EUR) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Nikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 38884/97)   Violation Article 5 §§ 1,3 and 4 Borislav Nikolov is a Bulgarian national born in 1981. He was a minor at the relevant time.   On 5 April 1997 he was arrested on suspicion of having blown up a car with explosives.     On the day of his arrest he was brought before an investigator who charged him. Referring to Article 152 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided for mandatory remand in custody save in exceptional circumstances, of everyone charged with an offence punishable by more than five years’ imprisonment, the investigator decided to detain the applicant pending trial. This decision was apparently confirmed on an unspecified date by a prosecutor. Several requests for the applicant’s release were refused.   On 15 September 1997 the applicant’s lawyer asked to consult the case file. Permission was refused.   On 16 September 1997 at a hearing on appeal against detention the applicant’s pre-trial detention was replaced with a more lenient measure, “parental supervision”, in view of his medical condition. Rejecting the applicant’s argument that his detention had been illegal from the outset, the judge stated that he had been lawfully detained. Although the authorities had initially relied on Article 152 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was inapplicable as the offence the applicant was charged with carried a punishment of less than five years’ imprisonment when committed by a minor, this mistake had been remedied later. The offence itself was also a serious one in that it fell into the category of offences that posed a danger to the public.   The applicant was released on 23 September 1997.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that, when arrested, he was not brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, that his pre-trial detention was unlawful and unjustified, that there were no legal grounds for his detention between 16 and 23 September 1997, about substantial delays in the examination of his appeal against detention and that his lawyer was refused access to the case file. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been:   -           a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention between 16 and 23 September 1997 but not during the first three months of detention; -           a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in that upon his arrest the applicant was not brought before a judge or other officer exercising judicial power and in respect of the length and lack of justification for the applicant’s detention pending trial; -           a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that the applicant’s judicial appeal against detention was not examined speedily and in that the applicant’s lawyer was refused access to the case file.   It awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 3   (3)     Ahmet Acar v. Turkey (no. 26546/95)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ahmet Acar is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.   The applicant was the owner of a plot of land in Küçükçekmece (Istanbul), which was expropriated on 9 June 1988 by the Directorate General for National Highways ( Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü ). He was awarded 9,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) in compensation, but brought an action for additional compensation in the Court of First Instance. On 25 December 1991 the court awarded him additional compensation of TRL 22,750,000, together with default interest at a rate of 30%. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment on 1 June 1992.   On 22 January 1992 the applicant brought enforcement proceedings against the authorities, and on 18 June 1996 the additional compensation was paid to him.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant complained of the interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as a result of the authorities’ delay in paying the additional compensation together with interest at a rate that was inadequate in view of the very high rate of inflation in Turkey.   The Court pointed out that an abnormally lengthy delay in the payment of compensation for expropriation led to increased financial loss for the person whose property had been expropriated, putting him in a position of uncertainty. In the present case, the Court noted that the additional compensation awarded to the applicant for the expropriation, together with default interest at a rate of 30% per annum, had been paid to him four years after the Court of Cassation’s decision, whereas at the material time inflation in Turkey had been running at an average of approximately 84% per annum. The Court considered that the delay in the payment of the compensation was solely attributable to shortcomings on the part of the expropriating authority and had caused the applicant to sustain separate loss in addition to the expropriation of his property. As a result of that delay and of the overall length of the relevant proceedings, the applicant had borne an individual and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.   The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     N.K.   v. Turkey (no. 43818/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and is currently being held in Malatya Prison.   The applicant, who was suspected of belonging to an armed gang, the PRK (Kurdistan Liberation Party), and providing it with financial assistance through her business, was arrested and taken into police custody on 19 December 1996. On 9 January 1997 she was charged under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713) with providing financial support to the PRK.   In a judgment of 2 October 1997 the İzmir National Security Court sentenced her to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. On 9 June 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld her conviction.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant argued that her case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. She also complained that the proceedings had been unfair in that she had been unable to receive assistance from her lawyer because of the distance between the place of her detention and the place of her trial.   As regards the independence and impartiality of the National Security Court, the Court reiterated that certain aspects of the status of military judges made their independence and impartiality questionable; they were servicemen who still belonged to the army, which in turn took its orders from the executive. In the Court’s opinion, the fact that a civilian accused of a terrorist offence had to stand trial before a National Security Court whose members included a military judge constituted a legitimate reason for her to fear that that court might lack independence or impartiality. The Court concluded that the National Security Court was not an independent and impartial tribunal and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on that account. Having regard to its finding of a violation, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint concerning the fairness of the proceedings. The Court unanimously awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 630 already received in legal aid.   (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 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 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.