ECHR: Communicated cases - 28.07.2008

Application no. 28883/05
by Zeynep ÇİÇEK and Others against Turkey

Hasan Çiçek lived in the village of Boydaş which is in south-east Turkey. Soldiers took Hasan Çiçek from his home in order to use him as a guide during a military operation conducted in the area. His neighbours witnessed the apprehension. An article was published in a daily newspaper which stated that Hasan Çiçek's corpse had been found. The applicants however were not informed of this finding by the authorities. On an unspecified date the first applicant filed a petition with the Hozat public prosecutor's office and requested that an investigation be initiated into her husband's disappearance. Hozat public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute in respect of the first applicant's allegations.

Application no. 24589/04
by Saliha BOZKIR and Others against Turkey

Süleyman Tekin, Ahmet Bozkır, Halit Ertuş, Selahattin Aşkan and Lokman Kaya were shepherds who earned their living in the valleys and mountains surrounding their village of Otluca, in south-east Turkey. An armed clash took place between members of the PKK and soldiers from the Hakkari Mountain and Commando Brigade Commander's office in the proximity of Otluca. As a result two non-commissioned officers and four privates were killed. Subsequently a military operation was initiated by the Hakkari Brigade Commander's office in the area surrounding Otluca. After the operation, the five shepherds who had been in a meadow in the mountain with the sheep went missing.

Application no. 30357/05
by Kiraz BİÇİCİ against Turkey

While attempting to participate in a press conference held in Galatasaray, Istanbul, the applicant was arrested by the police together with some other participants at approximately. Following her arrest the applicant was taken to a hospital for a medical examination. The doctor who examined her reported that there were no signs of injury on the applicant's body. On the same date, the applicant was questioned by the Beyoğlu public prosecutor. The applicant informed the public prosecutor that she had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police, who had used disproportionate force during her arrest. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor against the police officers. The medical expert who examined the applicant noted a 2 x 6 cm ecchymosis on the back of her left leg and concluded that the injury rendered the applicant unfit for work for five days. The doctor further noted that the applicant was suffering from pain in her right shoulder and right arm. The Beyoğlu public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the police officers. The applicant maintains that the police interference in the press conference constituted a breach of her rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.

Application no. 11008/04
by Rizvan Vakhayevich TALATOV against Russia

The applicant, Mr M. and Mr B. were charged with extortion. The charge was based on the investigator's interviews with three victims, brothers A. The victims stated that they had regularly paid money to the applicant, that in December 1999 after they had refused to pay the applicant had threatened them, Mr M. and Mr B. had beaten one of them under the applicant's instructions, and that the applicant, Mr M. and Mr B. had broke into their flat, threatened them with a rifle and severely beaten them to make them pay. The applicant was committed for trial. The victims, brothers A., did not appear at the hearings. The applicant asked the trial court to obtain their attendance. However, they no longer lived at their address in Khabarovsk and could not be found. The prosecutor asked the trial court for permission to read out the depositions made by the victims during the pre-trial investigation. They submitted that the defence team had not had an opportunity to question the victims during the investigation and asked the court to obtain their attendance.

The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings were unfair.

Application no. 11970/04
by Valeriy Viktorovich MARYENKO against Russia

The applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, theft and destruction of property. According to the hearing record, the judge first gave the floor to the prosecutor who presented his arguments. Then the counsel, joined by the applicant, requested the judge to grant them access to the documents submitted by the prosecution. The judge dismissed this request and gave the floor to the applicant's counsel who submitted his arguments, followed by the applicant. Thereafter the judge read out a list of the documents relied on by the prosecution, withdrew for deliberation and delivered his decision The applicant complains under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention that he was deprived of an adequate opportunity to challenge the prosecution's arguments in the proceedings concerning the extension of his detention because neither he nor his counsel had access to the documents submitted by the prosecution and relied upon by the remand judge.

Application no. 9590/06
by Stanisław KATA against Poland

The applicant had a car accident. The Lublin District Court granted the applicant a life disability pension from the insurer, Polish Insurance Establishment in the amount of 1,000 old Polish zlotys a month. The insurer did not pay the applicant's disability pension for the years 1995 to 2000. Following a complaint by the applicant in 2000, the insurer paid him the amount of 30.94 Polish zlotys. The applicant requested several times for his pension to be index linked. The applicant lodged a civil claim for compensation against the insurer. On an unspecified date the applicant was granted exemption from court fees exceeding the amount of PLN 1,200 for his claim. The Legnica Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim for compensation. The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.The Legnica Regional Court granted him exemption from court fees exceeding PLN 1,000. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) against that decision.The Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal. The Legnica Regional Court discontinued the appellate proceedings.

The applicant complains that, on account of the excessive court fees required from him for proceeding with his appeal, he had been deprived of access to a court for the determination of his civil rights.

Application no. 32293/05
by Danuta ILJINA and Evelina Sarulienė against Lithuania

According to the first applicant two police officers arrived at the applicants' apartment block to conduct a search for stolen goods in a flat next door. The policemen tried to enter the flat by force and the applicant, O.B. and V.I. told the officers that they had no right to enter the apartment. One of them suddenly grabbed V.I., loaded his gun and pointed it at V.I. The officers called for reinforcements, and more arrived; they hit V.I. and O.B. with rubber truncheons, and with their hands and feet. The second applicant went straight to the scene of the incident. In the courtyard of the apartment block, she saw three police cars and several policemen. O.B., V.I. and A.I were in the police cars and there were a lot of people milling around. D.I. and their neighbours who had witnessed the scene went to the police station to which A.I., O.B. and V.I. had been taken, but the police refused to accept their statements. The police authorities charged A.I., V.I. and O.B. The authorities dropped the charges on the ground that no information to prove the guilt of A.I., V.I. and O.B. At the applicants' request, the Internal Affairs Department of Vilnius City Police Headquarters began a pre-trial investigation into alleged ill-treatment by the police officers. Medical experts examined the applicants and found that they had sustained slight physical impairments. Prosecutor discontinued the pre-trial investigation, stating that there was not enough objective evidence to conclude that the police officers had abused their powers or had used unnecessary force.

Application no. 2954/07
by Theodoros STEFANOU against Greece

A kiosk owner reported to the local police an alleged theft of approximately 28 000 euros from him. During the summary investigation that was immediately carried out by the local police, four Roma youth, including the applicant, reported that they were taken to the police station, where they were insulted (including racially) and ill-treated. Police had previously denied him the right to call an attorney, but put in his statement that he had waived that right. The applicant complained about his ill-treatment to the Prosecutor's Office. Yet there was no ex officio investigation of these charges. The investigating judge brought charges not only against the police officer, but also against the police security department commander. Three-Member Criminal Court convicted the police officer to a sentence of three years imprisonment, commutable to a fine and suspended pending appeal. The Court also awarded a pecuniary compensation of 50 euros to the applicant. The defendant appealed against this judgment. Court of Appeal acquitted the police officer.

Application no. 21367/07
by Martti REMES against Finland

The applicant was questioned by the police on suspicion of having made defamatory remarks about another person in a letter. The applicant was summoned to an oral hearing. However, the court failed to summon a witness named by the applicant and the hearing was postponed. In that hearing the prosecutor charged the applicant with defamation. The complainant joined the charge and made an accessory claim for damages. The court gave its judgement on the same date. It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 40 unit fines. It also ordered him to pay damages and legal expenses to the complainant. The applicant appealed against the judgement, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant had not acted with intent. It acquitted the applicant of the charge and exempted him from paying damages. The applicant complains about the length of the above proceedings.

Application no. 39867/07
by Vjekoslav and Jelka TOMAŠIĆ against Croatia

The applicants were holders of a specially protected tenancy of a flat in Zagreb which had been confiscated from its owner T.G. in November 1945. The applicants lodged a request for purchase of the flat with the City of Zagreb. The applicants asked the Office for Property Affairs of the City of Zagreb – which was the competent administrative authority to examine requests lodged under the Denationalisation Act – whether the former owner had lodged a request for restitution of the flat. The Office replied that no such request had been lodged. City of Zagreb as the provider of the flat concluded a sale contract with the applicants. K. and F.G. and M.D., as the heirs of the former owner T.G., brought a civil action against the applicants and the City of Zagreb in which they asked the Zagreb Municipal Court to declare the above sale contract null and void as being contrary to the peremptory rules of the Denationalisation Act. The court ruled for the plaintiffs and declared the impugned sale contract null and void ab initio. The applicants appealed. The Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicants' appeal and upheld the first-instance judgement endorsing the reasons given therein.

The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that, by declaring the sale contract on the basis of which they purchased their flat null and void, the domestic courts infringed their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.

Application no. 40033/07
by Jelena ČIKLIĆ against Croatia

The applicant brought a civil action against the company Z. challenging her dismissal and seeking salary arrears. The court dismissed her action. The applicant appealed. The Zadar County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. The Municipal Court declared that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter and transferred the case to the Zadar Commercial Court, which gave judgment ruling for the applicant in part. Following the appeals of both parties, the High Commercial Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It appears that the proceedings are currently again pending. The applicant complains about the length of the above civil proceedings.

Application no. 52800/07
by Marijan BEŠLIĆ against Croatia

The applicant is an employee of the Ministry of Defence. In 1996, 1997 and 1998 the applicant was allocated demining work on the newly liberated territories in Croatia and entitled to a special allowance for that work. Since the allowance had not been paid to him, the applicant brought a civil action in the Knin Municipal Court against the Ministry of Defence, seeking payment of the unpaid allowance. The claim was granted twice at first instance, but both judgments were quashed at the appellate instance. In the fresh proceedings the Knin Municipal Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The applicant complains that the domestic court's decisions not to grant his claim for special allowance interfered with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession.

Application no. 45081/04
by Stepan STEPANYAN against Armenia

The applicant is a member of the National Democratic Union (NDU) one of the main opposition political parties. During the presidential election the applicant was involved with the work of the main opposition candidate and his responsibilities included monitoring the voting process, he recorded various irregularities beneficial to the incumbent President. He prepared a report of these irregularities. High officials from the Government of Armenia and the Ararat Region called him to the relevant election commission to try to prevent him from making his report public which he refused. The police frequently called him to the local police station without any reasons and demanded that he stop his political activities. The applicant was taken to Ararat Police Department. According to the record on bringing the applicant into custody. Judge S. examined his case and found him guilty under Article 182 of the CAO, sentencing him to eight days of administrative detention. He was not allowed legal representation. Nor was he allowed properly to familiarise himself with the materials of the case but was only told of the formal charges against him.