Repetitive cases and
length-of-proceedings cases, with the [UTF-8?]Court�s main finding
indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.
No violation of Article 8
Koons v. Italy (application no. 68183/01)
The applicant, Jeffrey Lynn Koons, is an American
national who was born in 1955 and lives in New York. His son L.M. was
born in New York in 1992 from his marriage with a Hungarian national
who had acquired Italian citizenship by naturalisation. L. M. who has
Italian and American nationality, lives in Rome with his mother.
The applicant and Mrs S.
have been litigating in the Italian courts about who should have
exclusive custody of their child since 1994. Mr Koons complained of the
Italian [UTF-8?]courts� decisions, firstly to keep the child in
Italian territory, thus preventing his son from visiting him at his
home in the United States, and secondly to award custody to the mother,
later to Rome social services and then to the mother again. He relied
on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to
respect for private and family life).
The European Court of Human
Rights noted that the Italian authorities had made a thorough
assessment of the family situation and the interests of all concerned,
especially those of L.M., in order to find the solution most likely to
provide him with a stable home environment, a necessary condition for
his healthy and balanced development. It considered that the Italian
judicial authorities had made every effort to protect the higher
interests of the child, while always recognising the
[UTF-8?]applicant�s right of contact, in a difficult situation marked
by constant disagreement between the parties and their inability to put
their [UTF-8?]son�s well-being first. The Court held by five votes to
two that there had been no violation of Article 8. (The judgment is
available only in French.)
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Marchi v. Italy (no. 58492/00)
The applicant, Maria Pia Marchi, is an Italian
national who was born in 1942 and lives in Lucca (Italy). She was
formerly the owner of land in Lucca which was expropriated in June 1981
with a view to the construction of low-rent housing.
She brought proceedings for
compensation in 1996, at the end of which the Italian courts ruled that
the right to compensation had lapsed through expiry of the statutory
time-limit. She complained that she had not been compensated for the
expropriation of her land. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to
the Convention (protection of property).
The Court noted that the
applicant had not been compensated at the time of the expropriation.
However, she had not taken the opportunity afforded by a judgment of
the Constitutional Court which in principle gave her the possibility of
obtaining the full market value of her property. That being so, the
Court considered that it was conduct imputable to the applicant which
had brought about the situation she complained of. It held unanimously
that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The
judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 5 § 3
Markoń v. Poland (no. 2697/06)
The applicant, Arkadiusz Markoń, is a Polish national
who was born in 1975 and is currently serving a ten year prison
sentence in Gdańsk Prison for armed robbery, illegal possession of
weapons and being a member of an organised criminal group.
The case concerned, in
particular, [UTF-8?]Mr Marko��s complaint about the excessive length
of his detention on remand. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to
liberty and security).
The Court concluded that
the grounds given by the domestic authorities could not justify having
detained the applicant for more than four years and ten months and
therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5
§ 3. Mr Markoń was awarded 1,500 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
Crăciun v. Romania (no. 5512/02)
The applicant, Nicolae Crăciun, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bucharest.
In March 1994 criminal
proceedings were brought against Mr Crăciun for fraud. He was convicted
as charged in July 2001 but the proceedings against him are currently
still pending on appeal. The case concerned the [UTF-8?]applicant�s
complaint about the excessive length of those criminal proceedings
against him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a
reasonable time).
The Court held unanimously
that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the
excessive length, 14 years and four months for two levels of
jurisdiction, of the criminal proceedings against Mr Crăciun and
awarded him EUR 7,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment
is available only in English.)
Violation of Article 8
I�Ĺldak v. Turkey (no. 12863/02)
The applicant, Sadi [UTF-8?]I�Ĺldak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.
In November 2000 a police
officer entered the [UTF-8?]applicant�s workshop, which is part of
his home, without being asked by the applicant to come in and without a
search warrant. The search was carried out in response to information
from the [UTF-8?]applicant�s neighbours to the effect that drugs were
consumed on the premises. The applicant complained on the following
day, but no criminal investigation could be conducted in respect of the
police officer since the district administrative committee, ruling on
the basis of the investigation report produced by the police inspector
charged with investigating the case, decided not to authorise one.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and
Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained of
an infringement of his right to respect for his home.
The Court noted that at the
relevant time the police could conduct searches without prior
authorisation if delay might hamper an investigation, and had
unfettered discretion to decide whether a search should be carried out
and how extensive it should be. In the [UTF-8?]applicant�s case, the
Court saw no reason to justify the lack of prior judicial review and
found that the search had constituted interference with the
[UTF-8?]applicant�s right to respect for his home. In addition, the
Court observed that at the relevant time the applicant did not have an
effective remedy whereby he could obtain judicial review of the
lawfulness and necessity of the search. Consequently, the Court held
unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. Lastly, it
considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the
complaint under Article 13. It awarded Mr [UTF-8?]I�Ĺldak EUR 1,000
for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 8
Koç and Others v. Turkey (no. 38327/04)
Nakçi v. Turkey (no. 25886/04)
The seven applicants are Turkish nationals. They are or were detained in Gaziantep Prison (Turkey).
They complained of the
prison [UTF-8?]authorities� refusal to deliver correspondence
addressed to them. They relied in particular on Article 8 (right to
respect for correspondence).
The Court observed that it
had already found that Articles 144 and 147 of Regulation no. 647 on
prison management and the execution of sentences did not indicate with
sufficient clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the
[UTF-8?]authorities� discretion to control [UTF-8?]prisoners�
correspondence. Similarly, it had previously noted that implementation
of the regulation in practice did not appear to make up for this
shortcoming.
The Court accordingly
considered that the interference with the [UTF-8?]applicants� right
to respect for their correspondence was not [UTF-8?]�in accordance
with the [UTF-8?]law� and therefore held unanimously that there had
been a violation of Article 8. It held that the finding of a violation
constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the
non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. (The judgments are
available only in French.)
Violation of Article 5 § 3
Mehmet Şahin and Others v. Turkey (no. 5881/02)
The four applicants, Mehmet Şahin, Ali Ekber
[UTF-8?]Ă�aÄ�lan, Sedat Serçik and Özgür [UTF-8?]BarÄąĹ� Mercan, are
Turkish nationals who were born in 1964, 1973, 1971 and 1978
respectively.
They were arrested in April
2001 on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation, the PKK
[UTF-8?](Workers� Party of Kurdistan). After nine days in police
custody they were placed in pre-trial detention and charged with
membership of and aiding and assisting the PKK. In October 2002 they
were acquitted. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to
liberty and security), they complained that the length of their
detention in police custody had been excessive. In addition, under
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Şahin
alleged that he had been ill-treated while in police custody at a
gendarmerie post.
The Court considered that
the evidence submitted to it by Mr Şahin was not such as to enable it
to establish that he had been ill-treated as alleged. In the absence of
a firmer basis for his allegations, it considered that Mr Şahin could
not criticise the judicial authorities for failing to discharge their
obligation to conduct an [UTF-8?]�effective [UTF-8?]investigation�.
Consequently, that part of the application was declared inadmissible.
As regards the complaint
concerning the length of detention in police custody, the Court did not
consider it to have been necessary to detain the applicants for nine
days before they were [UTF-8?]�brought before a [UTF-8?]judge�. It
accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article
5 § 3 and awarded each of the applicants EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 1,500 to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses
(less EUR 850 paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid). (The
judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Melek Sima [UTF-8?]YÄąlmaz v. Turkey (no. 37829/05)
The applicant, Melek Sima [UTF-8?]YÄąlmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Erzurum (Turkey).
She complained of
unfairness in the conduct of disciplinary and administrative
proceedings concerning her dismissal from her [UTF-8?]teacher�s post
on the ground that she had not complied with the dress code laid down
in the regulations in force at the relevant time, which prohibited the
wearing of headscarves by the staff of public institutions. She relied
on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).
The Court observed that it
had already examined in previous cases a complaint identical to the one
raised by the applicant regarding the failure to supply her with a copy
of the written opinion of State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative
Court and found violations of Article 6 § 1 in those cases. It
accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article
6 § 1 solely on account of the infringement of the right to adversarial
proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court and ruled that the
finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.
(The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
YakĹ�Ĺr v. Turkey (no. 51965/99)
The applicant, Ebuzeyt [UTF-8?]YakĹ�Ĺr, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in [UTF-8?]DiyarbakĹr (Turkey).
The applicant complained of
delay in executing a judgment in which the authorities had been ordered
to pay him compensation for unlawful detention, and of the inadequacy
of the default interest attached to the compensation. He relied in
particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
The Court considered that
the applicant had had to bear an excessive burden on account of the
[UTF-8?]administrations� shortcomings and held unanimously that there
had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It held that the
finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr
[UTF-8?]YakĹ�Ĺr and awarded him EUR 1,000 for pecuniary damage and
EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in
French.)
No violation of Article 8
Violation of Article 13
R.K. and A.K. v. the United Kingdom (38000/05)
The applicants, R.K., and his wife, A.K., are British
nationals who were born in 1972 and 1976, respectively. They live in
Oldham (United Kingdom). They have a daughter, M., who was born in July
1998.
In September 1998 M. was
taken to hospital with a fractured femur; doctors concluded that the
injury had not been accidental and she was placed in the care of her
aunt. Following another injury, M. was diagnosed with brittle bone
disease. She was returned home in April 1999. The case concerned the
[UTF-8?]applicants� complaint that their daughter was placed
temporarily in care due to a medical misdiagnosis. They relied on
Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right
to an effective remedy).
It was not disputed that
the interim care order had interfered with the [UTF-8?]applicants�
right to respect for their family life. That interference had been
[UTF-8?]�in accordance with the [UTF-8?]law� and pursued the
legitimate aim of protecting M.. Indeed, the authorities, medical and
social, had a duty to protect children and could not be held liable
every time genuine and reasonably-held concerns about the safety of
children in their families were proved, retrospectively, to have been
misguided. The Court considered that M., a three-month old baby, had
suffered a serious and unexplained fracture and that the social or
medical authorities could not be faulted for not immediately diagnosing
brittle bone disease, a very rare and difficult condition to identify
in small infants. Moreover, the baby had been placed within her
extended family and in close proximity to her [UTF-8?]parents� home
so that they could frequently and easily visit. As soon as another
fracture had occurred outside of the [UTF-8?]applicants� care,
further tests had been carried out and, within weeks, M. had been
returned to her home. The Court was therefore satisfied that the
domestic authorities had had relevant and sufficient reasons to take
protective measures, which had been proportionate in the circumstances
and had given due and timely account to the [UTF-8?]applicants�
interests. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been
no violation of Article 8.
However, the Court found
that the applicants should have had available to them a means to claim
that the local [UTF-8?]authority�s handling of procedures had been
responsible for any damage they had suffered and to claim compensation.
As such redress had not been available at the relevant time, the Court
held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 and
awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 18,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is
available only in English.)
Repetitive cases
The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Companhia Agrícola Cortes e Valbom S.A. v. Portugal (no. 24668/05)
The applicant company is the former owner of land
expropriated in 1975 in an agrarian reform programme. The Court found
the above violation on account of the amount of compensation paid to
the company, which did not correspond to [UTF-8?]�fair
[UTF-8?]compensation�, and on account of the delay in calculating and
paying the final sum.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Ana and Ioan Radu v. Romania (no. 24977/03)
Piştireanu v. Romania (no. 34860/02)
Cloşcă v. Romania (no. 6106/04)
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Constantin Popescu v. Romania (no. 5571/04)
The Court found the above violations in these four
cases concerning the [UTF-8?]authorities� failure to enforce final
judgments in the [UTF-8?]applicants� favour in good time or at all.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Filipescu v. Romania (no. 34839/03)
The Court found the above violation in this case concerning an action to recover possession of immovable property.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Gaciu v. Romania (no. 4630/03)
The Court found the above violations on account of
the setting aside of a final judgment in the [UTF-8?]applicants�
favour following an appeal by State Counsel.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
KaradumanlÄą v. Turkey (no. 64293/01)
The Court found the above violation on account of the
presence of a military judge as a member of the court which had tried
the applicant.
Length-of-proceedings cases
In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
Krzysztof Kaniewski v. Poland (no. 49788/06)
Drăgănescu v. Romania (no. 29301/03)
Duţă v. Romania (no. 29558/02)
Nicolae Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 10277/04)
S.C. Comprimex S.A. v. Romania (no. 32228/02)
Şevket [UTF-8?]SarÄą v. Turkey (no. 40200/04)
***
These summaries by the
Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the [UTF-8?]Court�s
judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).
