Judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Russia and Turkey

Transcription

1 issued by the Registrar of the Court Judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Russia and Turkey ECHR 282 (2012) The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 judgments, of which only Vezyrgiannis v. Greece (in italics) is a Committee judgment and is final. The others are Chamber judgments 1 and are not final. Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*). Robathin v. Austria (application no /06) The applicant, Heinz Robathin, is an Austrian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Vienna. A practising lawyer, he complained about a search carried out in his office in February 2006 and seizure of documents as well as all his electronic data following criminal proceedings brought against him on suspicion of theft, embezzlement and fraud of his clients. He was ultimately acquitted of all charges against him in March He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,500 (costs and expenses) Radeva v. Bulgaria (no /05)* The applicant, Desislava Ventsislavova Radeva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Sofia. On March 2003, she applied to the municipal social security authorities for a grant to cover certain dental care costs. The municipal director of social security turned down her request on the ground that Mrs Radeva had already been given a social security grant to cover her heating costs. Mrs Radeva took the case to court. The administrative panel of the Sofia Court declared her application inadmissible for being out of time. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) Mrs Radeva alleged that the merits of her appeal against the decision of the regional director of social security had not been examined in so far as the courts had erroneously calculated the statutory timelimit for lodging an appeal and rejected it as inadmissible. Violation of Article 6 (access to court) Just satisfaction: 800 euros (EUR) (costs and expenses) 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 Tashev v. Bulgaria (no /04)* The applicant, Petko Nokolov Tashev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). The joint-owner of building land in Plovdiv, Mr Tashev complained about the mayor of Plovdiv s order delivered in December 2000 to demolish his garage he had converted into a car repair workshop. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he challenged the outcome of the proceedings he had brought with regard to the mayor s demolition order. Further relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that no effective remedy had been available to him under domestic law. No violation of Article 1 of the Protocol no. 1 No violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 1 of the Protocol no. 1 Samsonnikov v. Estonia (no /10) The applicant, Dmitry Samsonnikov, is a Russian national who was born in Estonia in He is currently living in St Petersburg (Russia). He lived in Estonia never obtaining naturalisation all his life until his expulsion in May 2011 to Russia as the Estonian authorities had refused to renew his residence permit following his conviction for drug smuggling in Sweden in March 2008, combined with other convictions for offences already committed in Estonia including theft, violence and narcotic drugs. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained about his expulsion, alleging in particular that, as a second-generation immigrant, he had no ties whatsoever with Russia and that he was now separated from his partner as well as his father who both live in Estonia. No violation of Article 8 Buyan and Others v. Greece (no /08)* The applicants are 14 Turkish nationals who live in Ankara. As the beneficiaries of owners of land situated on the outskirts of the village of Glyphada, in the region of Rodopi, they claimed that the amount awarded as compensation for expropriation did not reflect the actual value of their properties. They complained that that compensation had not been paid promptly as a result of the wrongful conduct of the Bank of Greece which had forced them to take action in the Greek courts to have inheritance certificates issued. They alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (concerning Hulusi Zaim Buyan, Ertuğrul Gazi Buyan, Zeynep Nergis Buyan, Gül Kiz Buyan, Süheyla Akbulak, Nevin Seval, Fatma Şehbal Öktem and Sabiha Aral) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,800 to each of the applicants Hulusi Zaim Buyan, Ertuğrul Gazi Buyan, Zeynep Nergis Buyan Gül Kiz Buyan, Süheyla Akbulak, Nevin Seval and Fatma Şehbal Öktem and EUR to the applicant Sabiha Aral (non-pecuniary damage). Aleksejeva v. Latvia (no /07) The applicant, Jeļena Aleksejeva, is a Latvian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Rīga. The case concerned Ms Aleksejeva s complaint that, detained from October 2006 to January 2008 in Iļğuciema Prison for being an accessory to an armed robbery, the authorities had failed to ensure her safety as she had been a potential target for attack by other prisoners, her mother being a retired prison guard. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), she complained about restrictions on visits from both her mother and partner. 2

3 No violation of Article 8 Mariusz Lewandowski v. Poland (no /09) The applicant, Mariusz Lewandowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Elblag (Poland). While serving a prison sentence in 2009, he requested a stay of the execution of his sentence, which was refused by a judge. Mr Lewandowski made disparaging comments about that judge in a subsequent appeal, for which the judge ordered that he be put in solitary confinement for 28 days. Relying in particular on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Lewandowski complained about the unfairness of the proceedings. Violation of Article 6 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage). Siwiec v. Poland (no /08) The applicant, Witold Siwiec, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Zabrze (Poland). Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Siwiec complained about the unfairness of civil proceedings he had brought against his wife, claiming that she had unlawfully taken over the shoe shop they ran together when he was arrested in October Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), he alleged in particular that the domestic courts had not allowed him to appear at the only hearing on the case. No violation of Article 6 1 Falcão dos Santos v. Portugal (no /08)* The applicant, Manuel Falcão dos Santos, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1957 and lives in Sobreposta (Portugal). In November 2003 he was prosecuted by the Oporto prosecution department for making malicious accusations. For the purposes of a hearing, the judge of the Oporto Criminal Court assigned him a defence lawyer who declined on ethical grounds. Subsequently, several other defence lawyers were assigned but withdrew or were rejected by the applicant. He relied on Articles 6 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial / right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; right to be assisted by a lawyer; right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses). Violation of Article 6 1 et 3 b), c) et d) combined Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses) Razvyazkin v. Russia (no /09) The applicant, Sergey Razvyazkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and has been serving a prison term for robbery and murder in a correctional colony in the Tula Region (Russia) since Frequently disciplined in prison for repeatedly breaking the prison rules, he spent almost three years in solitary confinement cells between 2007 and Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the conditions in which he had been confined in the punishment cells, that the medical assistance given to him had been inadequate, that he had not had an effective remedy to challenge that and that the related civil proceedings had been unfair. Violation of Article 3 - repeated solitary confinement 3

4 No violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 - absence of an effective domestic remedy with regard to complaint about solitary confinement No violation of Article 6 Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage). Rustamov v. Russia (no /10) The applicant, Sobir Rustamov, is an Uzbekistani national who was born in 1966 and lived in Uzbekistan until He has been living in Russia with his wife and three minor children since On a wanted list in Uzbekistan for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order, he was arrested in February 2010 in Moscow. At the Uzbek authorities request, the Russian courts subsequently authorised his detention pending extradition, finding that the Russian Prosecutor General s decision to extradite him had been lawful. He was released from detention in August 2011, the court noting that he had a case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 1 (right to liberty and security), and article 5 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he complained that his extradition to Uzbekistan would expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment against which he had no means to effectively complain, as well as that his detention pending extradition had been unlawful. Violation of Article 3 - if the decision to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan were to be enforced No violation of Article 5 1 No violation of Article 5 4 No violation of Article 34 The Court also decided to continue its indication to the Government (made under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) that the applicant should not be deported until the judgment became final or until further order. Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted adequate just satisfaction. Gürkan v. Turkey (no /10) The applicant, İbrahim Gürkan, is a Turkish national. Serving in the Turkish Navy, he was found guilty in 2009 of disobeying his superior and was sentenced to two-and-a-half months in prison, which he served at the end of Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), he complained in particular that the military court had not been independent and impartial in his case. Violation of Article 6 1 Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. Öz v. Turkey (no. 6840/08)* The applicant, Mahmut Öz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1990 and lives in Istanbul. On the 15 January 2007, he was arrested for organised theft with violence, on suspicion of having stolen a minor s mobile telephone at knifepoint and placed in pretrial detention. The pre-trial detention was extended on various occasions. Relying on Article 5 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Öz complained about the length of his pre-trial detention, the ineffectiveness of his application to have a decision set 4

5 aside and the absence of any remedy which would have enabled him to seek compensation. Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that his case had not been dealt with within a reasonable time. He further complained about the lack of any remedy in domestic law to challenge the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him. Violation of Article 5 3, 4 and 5 Violation of Article 6 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,200 (non-pecuniary damage). Taylan v. Turkey (no /09) The applicant, Tamer Taylan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). Arrested on 8 March 2000 on suspicion of establishing a criminal organisation and committing fraud, threats and bribery, he complained that the police had ill-treated him in custody later the same day by stripping him naked, beating and electrocuting him, hanging him by the arms, forcing him to sit naked on cold ground and hosing him with water. He also complained that the related criminal proceedings against the police officers had been too long. He relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture). Violation of Article 3 (torture and procedure) Just satisfaction: EUR 45,500 (non-pecuniary damage). The applicant did not submit any claim for costs and expenses. Topaloğlu v. Turkey (no /04)* The applicant, Şener Topaloğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Rize (Turkey). M. Topaloğlu was accused of desertion while carrying out his compulsory military service at Ezine, and the 19 November 2001, the military court ordered his pretrial detention. Relying on Articles 5 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr. Topaloğlu submitted that, despite an order to release him on 8 March 2002, he had been only actually released at approximately midday on 11 March 2002 and that no remedy had been available to him by which to seek compensation for this unlawful detention. Further relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he argued that the proceedings against him before the Supreme Military Administrative Court had been unfair, that the judgment of that court had not been sufficiently reasoned and that he had not been provided with the opinion of the public prosecutor, in breach of the principle of equality of arms. Violation of Article 5 1 Violation of Article 5 5 Violation of Article 6 1 applicant not provided with public prosecutor s opinion Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following case, the applicant complained in particular under Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Vezyrgiannis v. Greece (nos /08 and 8571/09) Violation of Article 6 1 5

6 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 to the Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int tel: Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: ) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: ) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: ) Nina Salomon (tel: ) 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. 6