CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .s546EB40A { width:73.44pt; display:inline-block } .s2764BB86 { width:188.15pt; display:inline-block } .s2E74E3AD { width:158.16pt; display:inline-block } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s107D1E8 { width:32.57pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7E99EE1A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s777B20B9 { width:106.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     475   2.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Italy, Turkey and Ukraine     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]     (1) Hennig v. Austria (application no. 41444/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Otto Hennig, is an Austrian national, born in 1938 and living in Oberwart (Austria). He is an auditor and tax consultant.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him for tax evasion, which lasted approximately seven years and nine months.   The European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 4,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2) Andrea Corsi v. Italy (no. 42210/98)   Revision The applicant, Andrea Corsi, is an Italian national, born in 1963 and living in Rome. He requested revision of the judgment previously delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (judgment of 4 July 2002) concerning his application, in which the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings but made no financial award in respect of damage.   Noting that no sum had been awarded to Mr Corsi because no claim had reached the Registry within the time allowed, and that no new information warranting revision of the earlier judgment had been received, the Court decided unanimously to dismiss the application for revision. (The judgment is available only in French.)       (3) Santoro v. Italy (no. 67076/01)   Friendly settlement   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation Article 6 § 1     Non-pecuniary damage Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses (4) Bonamassa v. Italy (no. 65413/01) EUR 6,000 - EUR 3,500 (5) Ragone v. Italy (no. 67412/01) EUR 7,000 - EUR 3,000 (6) Sabatini and di Giovanni v. Italy (no. 59538/00) EUR 3,000 EUR 770 EUR 1,900   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 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Santoro v. Italy has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 4,000 for any damage, costs and expenses.   In the three other cases, in which the parties reached a friendly settlement, the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicants the sums indicated above for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (7) Alfatlı and Others v. Turkey (no. 32984/96)       Friendly settlement The application was lodged by 16 Turkish nationals who were arrested by the police between 1980 and 1985 on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way) and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them. Seven of them also argued that they were not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal.   The case has been struck out concerning 15 of the applicants, following a number of friendly settlements in which a total of EUR 445,360 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. Examination of the complaints raised by Mahmut Memduh Uyan has been adjourned. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (8) Ayşenur Zarakolu v. Turkey (no.1) (no. 37059/97) )                             Friendly settlement (9) Ayşenur Zarakolu v. Turkey (no.2) (no. 37061/97) )                             Friendly settlement (10) Ayşenur Zarakolu v. Turkey (no.3) (no. 37062/97) )                           Friendly settlement   Ayşenur Zarakolu was a Turkish national living in Istanbul. After her death in January 2002 her husband continued the case in her name. The applicant, who owned a publishing company in Istanbul, was prosecuted for disseminating separatist propaganda by publishing three books.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, that her case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the National Security Court. She also complained, under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, that the seizure of the books in question had violated her right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. She further submitted, under Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 10 (freedom of expression), that the seizure of the books had interfered with her right to freedom of expression. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she claimed that she had had no remedy in respect of her complaints. She alleged, lastly, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10, that the seizure of the books constituted discrimination on the ground of political opinion. In all three cases a friendly settlement has been agreed, in which the Turkish Government have made the following declaration: “The Government note that the Court’s rulings against Turkey in cases involving prosecutions under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act relating to freedom of expression 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.” EUR 5,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses in each case. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (11) Eren and Others v. Turkey (no. 42428/98) )                                        Friendly settlement The application was lodged by eight Turkish nationals: Hanifi Eren, Serdin Eren, Umut Eren, Halise Eren, Evin Eren, Nevin Eren, Bahar Eren and Hevin Eren. They are the wife, children and brother of İlyas Eren, who has been regarded as missing since 11 March 1997.   The applicants claimed that İlyas Eren was arrested on 11 March 1997 by four plain-clothes policemen at the Kulp bus station in the centre of Diyarbakır. They could not find out from the authorities what had happened to him. According to the security police headquarters’ records, İlyas Eren’s name did not appear on any arrest report. The investigation into his disappearance is still pending before the Turkish courts.   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicants maintained that İlyas Eren had disappeared while in detention unacknowledged by the authorities.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR   25,000 is to be paid for any damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. The Turkish Government have also made the following declaration:   “The Government regret the occurrence of the incidents which have led to the bringing of the present application, as in the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of İlyas Eren, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such incidents. It is accepted that inadequate investigations into complaints of a person’s disappearance constitute a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the right to life – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – is respected in the future. It is noted in this connection that legal and administrative measures have recently been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of unreported deprivations of liberty and of disappearances in circumstances similar to those of the present application as well as more effective investigations. …   “The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the execution of the Court judgment 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.) Violation Article 10 (12) Kızılyaprak v. Turkey (no. 27528/95)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Zeynel Abidin Kızılyaprak is a Turkish national, born in 1960 and living in Istanbul.   He is the owner of a publishing house, Pelê Sor , which published a book in 1991 entitled “How we fought against the Kurdish people! A soldier’s memoirs” ( Kürt Halkına Karşı Nasıl Savaştık - Bir Askerin Anıları ) about the memoirs of a Turkish solider who had done his military service in south-east Turkey.   On account of that publication, Mr Kızılyaprak was sentenced by Istanbul National Security Court on 14 October 1993 to six months’ imprisonment and a criminal fine for disseminating separatist propaganda. After a new statute came into force the case was reheard, the prison sentence upheld and the fine increased. Mr Kızılyaprak appealed to the Court of Cassation. His appeal was allowed because a new statute had come into force deferring prosecutions and penalties for offences committed by managing editors. After rehearing the case, following the Court of Cassation’s decision, the National Security Court deferred judgment.   Relying on Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant claimed that his conviction had infringed his right to freedom of thought and expression. He also complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that he had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the National Security Court.   The Court decided to examine the complaints raised concerning Article 9 and 10 under Article 10. It noted that Mr Kızılyaprak’s conviction amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression, that the interference was prescribed by law and that it pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of territorial integrity.   With regard to whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society, the Court noted, among other things, that although certain particularly acerbic passages in the book painted an extremely negative picture of the Turkish State and the army and thus gave the narrative a hostile tone, they did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising, which, in the Court’s view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration.   The Court found that the national authorities had not taken sufficient account of the public’s right to be informed of a different perspective on the situation in south-east Turkey. With regard to the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant, the Court noted that the deferral of the judgment against him was subject to the condition that he did not intentionally commit any other offence in his capacity as editor for three years. The Court therefore held that the sentence imposed on Mr   Kızılyaprak was disproportionate to the aims pursued and therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   With regard to the complaint of the National Security Court’s lack of independence and impartiality, the Court reiterated that it had on many previous occasions examined cases raising similar issues. In its view, the fact that a civilian had to stand trial before a National Security Court whose members included a military judge constituted a legitimate reason for that civilian to fear that the court might lack independence and impartiality. Accordingly, the Court considered that when it judged and convicted the applicant the National Security Court was not an independent and impartial tribunal and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Kızılyaprak EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (13) Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine (no. 48553/99)                                Just satisfaction The applicant, Sovtransavto Holding, is a Russian international transport company formed in 1993 whose registered office is in Moscow. It held 49% of the shares in a Ukrainian public company, Sovtransavto-Lugansk.   In 1996 Sovtransavto Lugansk decided, without consulting the applicant company, to alter its articles of association, and by increasing its share capital gained sole control of its management and assets. The applicant company then unsuccessfully brought proceedings in the Ukrainian courts to have the amendments to the articles of association and the decisions approving them declared null and void.   In a judgment of 25 July 2002 a Chamber of the Court held that the applicant company had not had a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, notably on account of the many interventions by the Ukrainian authorities in the proceedings. The Court further ruled that the conduct of the proceedings complained of and the uncertainty about the legality of the decisions contested by the applicant company had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It reserved the question of just satisfaction, which was not yet ready for decision.   In the Court’s judgment on just satisfaction, delivered today, it decided unanimously to award the applicant company EUR 500,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 75,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 50,000 for costs and expenses. (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 Press 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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.   [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.