Avertir le modérateur

human right courts

  • Pin it!

    Exemples de jugements de la cour d'appel des Droits de l'Homme à Strasbourg: janvier 2010 (anglais)...

    Imprimer

    Les jugements en appel

    de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l'Homme (et du citoyen)

     à Strasbourg,

    pour le mois de janvier (english

    att7c436[1].jpg

     

    Issued by the Registrar

    Forthcoming Chamber judgments

    - 26 and 28 January 2010

     

    Strasbourg, 22.01.2010 -

    The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying

    in writing 32 

    Chamber judgments on Tuesday 26 

    January 2010

    and seven on Thursday 28 January 2010.

     

    NB

    (NDLR)

    Press releases and texts of the judgments will be

     available at 11 a.m.

    (local time)

     on the Court’s Internet site :

    http://www.echr.coe.int

      

    Tuesday 26 January 2010

     Balint v. Romania

    (application no. 44954/04)

    Bogdan v. Romania

    (no. 21750/04)

    The applicants, Ion Balint and Constantin Bogdan, are Romanian nationals

    who were born in 1969 and 1957 respectively and live in Bucharest. Relying

    on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) both

    applicants complain, in particular, of the length of criminal proceedings

    concerning robbery and trespassing in the first case, and of a claim

    for damages in the second case.

     

    Abdo v. Turkey

    (no. 17681/04)

    The applicant,

    Şükrü Abdo, is a Syrian national who was born in 1970 and is currently

    in prison in Midyat (Turkey). He was arrested in 1996 by police from

    the Counter-Terrorism Department for being a member of the PKK

     (Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal organisation). Relying on Article

     5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 2 

    (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 3

    (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains

    about his pre-trial detention, its duration and the lack of a

    remedy for challenging its lawfulness, and of having been

    tortured while in police custody. Relying on Article 6, he also

    complains about the allegedly excessive length of the criminal

    proceedings against him before the domestic courts.

     

    Alican v. Turkey

    (no. 21868/02)

    The applicants, Kamuran Alican, Ramazan Alican and

     Ahmet Alican, are Turkish nationals who were born in

    1983, 1946 and 1936 respectively and live in Turkey.

    The case concerns the death of the second and third

    applicants’ sons and the wounding of the first applicant

     by a grenade explosion in the vicinity of a military base

     in 1994. The applicants complain, in particular, that no

     effective investigation was conducted into the incident,

     in breach of Article 2 (right to life), and that their rights

    under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable

     time) were violated by the excessive length of the compensation

     proceedings.

    Alıcı and Omak v. Turkey

    ıcı et Hamza Omak, are Turkish nationals who were born respectively

    in 1951 and 1967 and live in Bingöl (Turkey). On suspicion of being members

     of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal organisation), they

    were arrested in 1999 and placed in police custody following a search a

    t their homes. Relying

     

    ./..

     

    on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 

    13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain of ill-treatment

    during police custody and of the lack of an investigation into their

    allegations. Under Articles 5 §§ 2, 3, 4 (right to liberty and

     security), they also complain that they were not informed of

    the reason for their arrest, that they had no means of

    having the lawfulness of their detention verified and that they

    had not been brought promptly before a judge. Relying on

    Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they alleged that the judicial authorities

    lacked independence and impartiality and complained that they had

    not been assisted by a lawyer while in police custody.

     

    Atlı v. Turkey

    (no. 43529/04)

    The applicant,

    Şükrü Atlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and

     lives in Midyat (Turkey). Having received warning of an imminent

     attack by the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal

     organisation), the police on duty at the border with Iraq

    arrested the applicant and placed him in custody. The applicant

    relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)

    and 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning his police custody.

     Under Article 6 §§ 1, 2, and 3 c) (right to a fair trial within

    a reasonable time), he complains that he was tortured in police

     custody and that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair.

     

    Çoban v. Turkey (No. 2)

    (no. 4977/04)

    Ömer Berber v. Turkey

    (no. 45084/04)

    The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Turkey.

     Küçük Hasan Çoban was born in 1975 and was in prison in Ankara

    at the time the application was lodged. Ömer Berber was born in

     1975 and lives in Adana. They were arrested in 1998 and 1995

    respectively, on suspicion of working with illegal organisations.

    Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they

    complain that they were not assisted by a lawyer while in police

    custody and that the subsequent criminal proceedings against

    them were unfair. Mr Ömer Berber also complains about the length

     of the proceedings.

     

    Demir and

    (no. 57653/00)

    The applicants, Halim Al

    İpek v. Turkey

    İpek, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1970 respectively

     and are currently detained in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Arrested on

    suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, they complain

     that the length of their pre-trial detention and the criminal

    proceedings against them was excessive, in breach of Articles

     5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to

     a fair trial).

     

    Emen v. Turkey

    (no. 25585/02)

    The applicant, Habil Emen, is a Turkish national who was born in

    1968 and lives in Mardin (Turkey). In 2001 he was sentenced to

    life imprisonment for murder in the service of the PKK (Kurdistan

    Workers' Party, an illegal organisation). The court based its findings

     on evidence from the file in a previous case, in which the applicant

    was not involved. Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 

    3 d) (right to a fair trial), Mr Emen complained that he had not

    been able to question the people whose statements had played

    an essential part in establishing his guilt. He submits that the fact t

    hat the Turkish courts took those statements – which he alleges

     were extracted under duress – into account violated his right to

     a fair trial.

     

    Kürüm v. Turkey

    (no. 56493/07)

    The applicant, Kaz

    ım Kürüm, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and

     is currently in prison in Edirne (Turkey). In March 1997 he

     was arrested and placed in custody as part of an operation

     carried out in Istanbul against an illegal armed organisation.

    He was convicted in 2002 by a first-instance judgment that was

     set aside by the Court of Cassation in 2003. The criminal proceedings

     are apparently still pending and the applicant is still in detention

     pending their outcome. Relying in particular on Article 5 §§ 3, 4

     and 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains of the

     length of his detention and the lack of an effective remedy to challenge

     the length and lawfulness of his detention and claims compensation for

     his allegedly unlawful detention. Relying on Article 6 §1 (right to a fair

     trial within a reasonable time), he complains that the length of the criminal

     proceedings against him was excessive.

     

    M ızrap Ateş v. Turkey

    ızrap Ateş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978

     and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). He was arrested in 1998

    in the course of an operation against the illegal organisation

     DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front).

    Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security),

    he complains about the length of his detention pending trial.

     

    Özer v. Turkey (No. 2)

    (no. 871/08)

    Ürper and Others v. Turkey

    (nos 55036/07, 55564/07, 1228/08,

    1478/08, 4086/08, 6302/08 and 7200/08)

    The applicants are 19 Turkish nationals. They are, or

    were, journalists, editors, executive directors or owners

     of newspapers and press companies. Since 2001 in one

    case and 2007 in the other they have had criminal proceedings

    brought against them and editions of their newspapers have

     been suspended or seized. In the Özer (no. 2) case this

     was because of the publication of an article about brutal

    police intervention in Turkish prisons and, in Ürper and Others,

     for supporting the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal

    organisation). Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression),

    the applicants complain about the measures taken against

    them or their publications. They allege that their trials were not

     fair for various reasons, and/or that their right to be presumed

     innocent was not respected, in breach of Articles 6 and/or 13.

     They also complain that the principle "no punishment without law",

     enshrined in Article 7, was violated, as was their right to the

    peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article1

     of Protocol No. 1.

     

    Ebanks v. the United Kingdom

    (no. 36822/06)

    The applicant, Kurt Ebanks, is a British national from the

     Cayman Islands who was born in 1976 and is currently

    serving a prison sentence for murder in the Cayman

     Islands. He complains that his rights under Article 

    6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial) were

     violated by the fact that in his appeal against

    his conviction, on the grounds of inadequate legal

     representation, no oral evidence was heard regarding

    a factual dispute as to the conduct of his defence at trial.

    ***

    Repetitive cases

    The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.

     

    Aldo Leoni v. Italy

    (application no. 67780/01)

    In this case the applicant complains of failure to pay

    compensation for the expropriation of his land and a

     building. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair

     hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection

    of property).

     

    Just satisfaction

    Avramenko v. Moldova

    (no. 29808/02)

    In a judgment of 6 February 2007, the Court held that

     there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right

     to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 

    1 (protection of property) on account of the late enforcement

     of a judgment in the applicant’s favour, and that the

    question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)

    was not ready for decision.

     

    B (no. 7933/05)

    The applicant, M

    (nos. 42138/07 and 42143/07)

    The applicants, Mahmut Demir and Mustafa

    ădoi v. Romania

    (no. 22815/07)

    This case concerns the applicant’s inability to obtain

    effective compensation for property belonging to him that

    had been illegally nationalised. He relies on Article 1 of

     Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article

     6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

     

    Ilie Ionescu v. Romania

    (no. 25963/03)

    This case concerns an action for recovery of property.

     The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 

    1 (protection of property).

     

    Loewenton v. Romania

    (no. 111/07)

    Nita v. Romania

    (no. 24202/07)

    Veniamin v. Romania

    (no. 19438/05)

    These cases concern the applicants’ inability to recover

     possession of property that had been nationalised and

     subsequently sold by the State. The applicants rely on

    Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)

     and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

     

    Aurelia Popa v. Romania

    (no. 1690/05)

    Niculae Petre Popa v. Romania

    (no. 11249/06)

    Tureanu v. Romania

    (no. 9822/06)

    These cases concern the applicants’ complaint that the

    domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in

     their favour. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a

    fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection

     of property).

     

    Ţuluş and Others v. Romania

    (no. 40892/04)

    This case concerns the applicants’ complaint that a final

    decision in their favour was quashed by way of supervisory

     review. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

     

    Gümrükçüler and Others v. Turkey

    (no. 9580/03)

    Keçeli and Ba

    şpınar v. Turkey (no. 21426/03)

    Pak v. Turkey

    (no. 21516/04)

    In these cases the applicants complain that they were deprived

    of their property, designated as forest area, without compensation.

     They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

    In the case of Gümrükçüler and Others the applicants also rely

     on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

     

    Yener and Albayrak v. Turkey

    (no. 42900/04)

    In this case the applicants complain that there was no

    public hearing in proceedings brought against them.

    They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).

     

     Length-of-proceedings cases

     

    In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular

     under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a

    reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal)

    proceedings. In the case of Zeytinli the applicant also relies

     on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

     

    Gökçek and Others v. Turkey

    (no. 6219/04)

    Zeytinli v. Turkey

    (no. 42952/04)

     

    Thursday 28 January 2010

     

    Puchstein v. Austria

    (no. 20089/06)

    Stechauner v. Austria

    (no. 20087/06)

    The applicants, Hans Herbert Puchstein and Michael Stechauner,

     are two Austrian medical practitioners who live in St Oswald

     and Großau respectively. The cases concern their claim for

     reimbursement of fees under their contract with the Regional

    Health Insurance Board. Relying on Article 6 § 1

    (right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial

    tribunal within a reasonable time) both applicants complain

    that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that

    the Regional Appeals Commission was not independent and

     impartial.

     

    Simeonov v. Bulgaria

    The applicant, Tihomir Kolev Simeonov, is a Bulgarian national who

    was born in 1970 and lives in Dobrich (Bulgaria).

    He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for burglary.

    Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5

     § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the conditions

    in which he was detained pending trial and about the length of his pre-

    trial detention. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life),

     he complains that his wife, and consequently his daughter, a minor,

    were not allowed to visit him in prison.

     

    Just satisfaction

    Brauer v. Germany

    The applicant, Brigitte Brauer, is a German national who was

     born in 1948 in Oberschwöditz (the former German Democratic Republic

     (GDR)). She now lives in Lennestadt (Germany (FRG)). In a judgment

     delivered on 29 May 2009, the Court held that there had been a

    violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction

     with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account

    of the fact that the applicant, having been born out of wedlock, was

     unable to assert her inheritance rights. The Court held that the application

    of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and invited

     the parties, within three months from the date of the judgment,

    to notify the Court of any agreement that they might reach.

    Length-of-proceedings cases

     

    In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular:

    under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a

     reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-

    criminal) proceedings. In the cases of Rambauske and Pavi

    (no. 3545/04)(no. 30122/03)

    ć the applicants also rely on Article 13 (right to an

    effective remedy).

     

    Rambauske v. Austria

    (no. 45369/07)

    Pavi

    ć v. Croatia (no. 21846/08)

    Risteska v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

    (no. 38183/04)

Toute l'info avec 20minutes.fr, l'actualité en temps réel Toute l'info avec 20minutes.fr : l'actualité en temps réel | tout le sport : analyses, résultats et matchs en direct
high-tech | arts & stars : toute l'actu people | l'actu en images | La une des lecteurs : votre blog fait l'actu