CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 22 mai 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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE66F2CF4 { width:15.18pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sEC65736C { width:318.89pt; display:inline-block } .s499DE589 { width:242.91pt; display:inline-block } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s22616DFB { width:17.89pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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     274   22.5.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Greece, Italy and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Violations Article 6 § 1 (1)     Kyrtatos v. Greece (application no. 41666/98)              No violation Article 8 The applicants, Sofia Kyrtatou and her son, Nikos Kyrtatos, are Greek nationals, born in 1921 and 1953 respectively and living in Munich.   They own property in the south-eastern part of the Greek island of Tinos. Their property includes a swamp by the coast in Ayios Yiannis. Ms Kyrtatou is the co-owner of a house and a plot of land on the Ayia Kiriaki - Apokofto peninsula, which is next to the swamp. Their problems started when the prefect of Cyclades redrew the boundaries of Ayios Yiannis in the municipality of Dio Horia, on the basis of which the town-planning authority of Syros issued building permits in the area concerned. Two buildings were erected near their property.   On 21 July 1993 the applicants and the Greek Society for the Protection of the Environment and Cultural Heritage applied to the Council of State for judicial review of the prefect’s decisions and the building permits. Their main argument was that these were illegal because there was a swamp in the area concerned and, under a constitutional provision protecting the environment, no buildings could be erected in an important natural habitat for various protected species. Their application was successful; however, on 21 April 1997 a special committee of the Council of State found that the authorities had failed to enforce its decisions: they had not demolished the two buildings erected near the applicants’ property and had continued issuing building permits in respect of the area.   The applicants complained, under Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, about the authorities’ failure to enforce the Council of State’s decisions annulling two permits for the construction of buildings near their property. They further complained, under Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings they had instituted against their neighbour, whom they accused of trespassing on their property, and also about the length of administrative proceedings concerning the threatened demolition of Mrs   Kyrtatou’s house.   The European Court of Human Rights held that, by failing to enforce two final judicial decisions for more than seven years, the Greek authorities had deprived Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of all useful effect. There had accordingly been a violation of that provision. The proceedings against the neighbour had lasted more than 12 years to date for two levels of jurisdiction and the proceedings in connection with the threatened demolition of the first applicant’s house more than 8 years to date for one level of jurisdiction. The Court found that the cases were not particularly complex and that the applicants bore no responsibility for their excessive length. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the authorities’ failure to deal with the applicants’ complaints within a reasonable time.   The applicants had not shown how the alleged damage to the environment had directly affected their rights under the Convention. The Court could not accept that the interference with the conditions of animal life in the swamp constituted an attack on the applicants’ private or family life. The disturbances coming from the neighbourhood as a result of the urban development of the area had not been sufficiently serious to be taken into account under Article 8. There had accordingly been no violation of that provision.   The Court awarded Ms Kyrtatou and her son 20,000 euros (EUR) and EUR   10,000 respectively for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Friendly settlement (2)     Attene v. Italy (no. 62135/00)   EUR 5,500             Violation Article 6 § 1       Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     non-pecuniary damage costs and expenses (3)     Carbone v. Italy (no. 48842/99) EUR 3,000 EUR 1,000 (4)     Mottola v. Italy (no. 58191/00) EUR 3,000 EUR 2,000 (5)     Voglino v. Italy (no. 48730/99) EUR 3,000 EUR 2,000   The applicants in the above four 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 a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   In the last three cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The case of Attene v. Italy was struck out following a friendly settlement. The Court awarded the applicants the following amounts, in euros, for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (All judgments are available only in English.)   (6)     Yaman v. Turkey (no. 37049/97)                    Friendly settlement Mehmet Yaman is a Turkish worker who was born in 1953 and lives at Aydın. He is the father of Yunus Yaman, who was born in 1976 and died in August 1996 while in pre-trial detention. According to the custody record, the applicant’s son was arrested on 16 June 1996 following an allegation that he was connected with the PKK. He had been found near the village of Kurtköyü (Elazığ), unable to talk or walk. While in custody, he was examined by several doctors who noted that he presented scratches and was suffering from malnutrition and an infectious disease (brucellosis).   On 28 June 1996 an order was made for him to be detained pending trial. He was twice transferred to Ankara General Hospital where the doctors diagnosed him as suffering from muscular atrophy, a heart problem, malnutrition and weakness and wasting due to severe chronic illness. On 30 August 1996 he died at Ankara General Hospital from tuberculosis affecting several organs. The proceedings brought in connection with the applicant’s complaints against the custody officers and the doctors who treated him were discontinued.   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) of the Convention, the applicant alleged that his son had died as a result of torture in custody and that the authorities of the hospital had not been sufficiently vigilant and had delayed in giving him treatment. He also complained under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) that he had been denied access to a court, as the proceedings brought in connection with his complaints had been discontinued. Lastly, he complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that he had not had any remedy in respect of his complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive 60,000 euros for damage and costs and expenses. The Government also made the following declaration.   “The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of death resulting from the failure to protect the lives of detainees and the failure of the authorities to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances surrounding the death of detainees, as in the case of the applicant’s relative, Mr Yunus Yaman, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to remedy such failures. It is accepted that such acts and failures constitute a violation of Articles   2 and   3 of the Convention and the Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the right to life and the prohibition of ill-treatment – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations as also required by Articles 2 and 13 – are respected in the future. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of deaths and ill-treatment of detainees in circumstances similar to those of the instant application and in more effective investigations being carried out.   The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place.” (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)   Joanna Reynell (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.