Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey. Karaivanova and Mileva v. Bulgaria (application no /05)

Transcription

1 issued by the Registrar of the Court Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments 1 none of which is final. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*). ECHR 172 (2014) Karaivanova and Mileva v. Bulgaria (application no /05) The case concerned proceedings for restitution of agricultural land. The applicants, Maria Karaivanova and Petranka Mileva, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1928 and 1930 respectively and live in Sofia. They are heirs to a plot of land situated in the coastal area around Sozopol which had been acquired by their father in the 1930s under legislation allocating agricultural land to refugees. In the 1960s the land, considered abandoned, had been entered in the register of state-owned property and used to construct a student summer camp. In 1991, the applicants applied for restitution of the land. In October 1997 the Sozopol agricultural land commission held that the land was to be restored to the applicants and an attempt to vary that decision was quashed in July 1999 by the national courts. As the local authorities did not respond to the applicants request to vacate the property, they lodged a rei vindicatio claim in which they alleged that the local authorities did not have the right to occupy their land, requesting compensation for lost profit as well as that the summer camp be demolished. Ultimately, this claim was dismissed in March 2003 on the ground that the applicants were not entitled to restitution of the land, as the summer camp was a complex construction of buildings, paths and other infrastructure and served the important purpose of providing holiday facilities for students in the Stara Zagora municipality. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation in a final judgment of March Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants alleged that the rejection of their rei vindicatio claim, despite the decisions of October 1997 and July 1999, had breached the principle of legal certainty. They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention about in particular the unreasonable length of the restitution process. No violation of Article 6 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the delays in the restitution procedure Just satisfaction: 2,500 euros (EUR) each to Ms Karaivanova and Ms Mileva (pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage), and EUR 1,500 to both applicants jointly (costs Marian Toma v. Romania (no /09)* The applicant, Marian Toma, is a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerned the conditions of his detention in various prisons in Romania. 1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:

2 On 20 May 2001 Mr Toma, who was suspected of car theft, was placed in pre-trial detention; that detention was extended by the trial court. He was convicted and sentenced, by a final judgment of the High Court of Cassation, to 11 years imprisonment. From 6 July 2009 Mr Toma was held in the prison at Bucharest police section no. 15, then he was successively held in the Rahova-Bucharest prison, the Jilava-Bucharest and Dej prison hospitals and, lastly, in the Giurgiu and Slobozia prisons. On 30 November 2012 he was released on parole. Mr Toma alleged, in particular, that his conditions of detention in the various prisons where he had served his sentence had been in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), and also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him, contrary to Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 6 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 9,400 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 800 (costs Zamfirachi v. Romania (no /10) The applicant, Adrian Richartt Zamfirachi, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Bucharest. He was a lawyer. The case concernd the conditions of his detention on charges of organising a criminal group and trading in influence. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Zamfirachi complained in particular about the conditions of his pre-trial detention in Bucharest Police Department from 23 April to 27 July 2010, principally on account of overcrowding and poor hygiene, but also when his cell was disinfected on 31 May 2010, exposing him to dangerous chemicals. Violation of Article 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 200 (costs Aslan and Sezen v. Turkey (no /04)* Aslan and Sezen v. Turkey (no. 2) (no /05)* The cases concerned the issue of press freedom in Turkey. The applicants, Memet Aslan and Zozan Sezen, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952 and 1976 and live in Hamburg (Germany) and Istanbul. At the relevant time Ms Sezen was the owner of a bi-monthly periodical, Dema Nu, and Mr Aslan was its editor-in-chief. The first case concerned an article published on 1 February 2003 in Dema Nu, giving an account of clashes which had occurred in south-east Turkey between the Turkish army and the PKK, an illegal armed organisation. The State Security Court ordered the seizure of the relevant issue of the newspaper and the prosecutor called for Mr Aslan and Ms Sezen to be convicted for publishing statements by an illegal armed organisation in their newspaper. By a judgment of 10 June 2003, the State Security Court convicted them of an offence under the anti-terrorist legislation and imposed fines. It also ordered the temporary closure of the newspaper for one day. Mr Aslan and Ms Sezan appealed on points of law and the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. The second case concerned the publication of articles in the 30 April 2002 issue of Dema Nu, which resulted in the seizure of copies of the issue in question, on an order by a judge of the State Security Court, and subsequently in the imposition of fines on Mr Aslan and Ms Sezen, on the ground that their newspaper had published a statement by a terrorist organisation. The State Security Court ordered that no issues of the newspaper be published for a week. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment. 2

3 Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Aslan and Ms Sezen complained that their convictions had amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of expression. Violation of Article 10 in both cases Just satisfaction: - in the case of Aslan and Sezen (no /04): EUR 1,500 each to Mr Aslan and Ms Sezen (nonpecuniary damage) - in the case of Aslan and Sezen (n 2) (no /05): EUR 140 to Mr Aslan and EUR 280 to Ms Sezen ( respect of pecuniary damage), and EUR 1,500 each ( non-pecuniary damage) Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 2) (no /08)* Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 3) (no /08)* Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 4) (no. 4323/09)* Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 5) (no. 4327/09)* Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 6) (no. 4375/09)* Belek and Özkurt v. Turkey (no. 7) (no /09)* The cases concerned the issue of press freedom in Turkey. The applicants, Ahmet Sami Belek and İsmail Muzaffer Özkurt, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1953 and 1978 respectively. They are the owner and editor-in-chief respectively of the daily newspaper Evrensel ( The Universal ), which has its head office in Istanbul. Between 11 March 2004 and 26 February 2005 Evrensel published various articles which contained statements by the Workers Party of Kurdistan (PKK). Mr Belek and Mr Özkurt were charged with publishing statements by an illegal armed organisation, an offence punishable under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and ordered to pay fines not exceeding 2,000 Turkish lira (and thus not subject to an appeal on points of law). Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Belek and Mr Özkurt alleged that their convictions had amounted to a breach of their right to freedom of expression. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they complained, in particular, that it had been impossible to appeal to the Court of Cassation. Violation of Article 10 in all six cases Violation of Article 6 in all six cases, in respect of the impossibility for the applicants to appeal to the Court of Cassation Just satisfaction: - in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 2): EUR 258 each to Mr Belek and Mr Özkurt (pecuniary - in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 3): EUR 870 to Mr Belek and EUR 434 to Mr Özkurt (pecuniary - in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 4): EUR 745 to Mr Belek and EUR 372 to Mr Özkurt (pecuniary - in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 5): EUR 934 to Mr Belek and EUR 469 to Mr Özkurt (pecuniary 3

4 - in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 6): EUR 779 to Mr Belek and EUR 389 to Mr Özkurt (pecuniary - in the case of Belek and Özkurt (no. 7): EUR 656 to Mr Belek and EUR 313 to Mr Özkurt (pecuniary Karaosmanoğlu and Özden v. Turkey (no. 4807/08)* The case concerned a complaint alleging the lack of an effective remedy to examine detention and the lack of a remedy to obtain compensation. The applicants, Mehmet Selçuk Karaosmanoğlu and Hasan Hüseyin Özden, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1951 and 1959 and live in İzmir. At the relevant time the applicants were the mayor and deputy mayor of the municipality of Urla. In April 2005 the municipality of Urla sold a plot of municipal land to a company Ürit; the regional chamber of agriculture tried unsuccessfully to block the sale. In May 2005 Ürit awarded a contract to another company for the construction of a business centre on the purchased plot. The public prosecutor opened an investigation following a fire in Ürit s premises. An initial report revealed certain breaches of the rules in the procedure for awarding the contract for construction of the business centre. The judge authorised the wiretapping of several persons, including the applicants, who were suspected of being involved in misappropriations. The applicants were arrested on 30 July On 2 August 2007 the judge ordered that they be placed in pre-trial detention. On 13 March 2012 the assize court convicted the applicants of breaching the rules governing public procurement, and sentenced them to four years and two months imprisonment. It also convicted them of abuse of office and imposed a suspended prison sentence of one year, ten months and 15 days. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law, which is still pending. Relying in particular on Article 5 4 and 5 (right to speedy review of the lawfulness of detention / right to compensation), Mr Karaosmanoğlu and Mr Özden notably complained that they had no effective remedy to have their detention reviewed and alleged that they had no remedy to obtain compensation on account of the detention, which they considered to have been contrary to the provisions of Article 5 (right to liberty and security). Violation of Article 5 4 in that the applicants had not appeared before the judges called upon to decide the matter of their detention Violation of Article 5 5 Just satisfaction: EUR 750 each to Mr Karaosmanoğlu and Mr Özden (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 1,000 to the two applicants jointly (costs This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on To receive the Court s press releases, please subscribe here: or follow us on Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int tel: Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: ) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: ) Nina Salomon (tel: ) 4

5 Denis Lambert (tel: ) 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. 5