issued by the Registrar of the Court
no. 326
12.04.2011
Judgments 1 concerning Austria, Italy, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Russia and Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following
12 judgments.
Repetitive cases 2 and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding
indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. The judgments available only in
French are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Meidl v. Austria (application no. 33951/05)
The applicant, Walter Meidl, is an Austrian national who was born in 1956 and lives in
Salzburg (Austria). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time)
of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Meidl complained that the length of
criminal proceedings brought against him for tax fraud had lasted an unreasonably long
time.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
Just satisfaction: 8,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,150 (costs
and expenses)
Adrian Constantin v. Romania (no. 21175/03)*
The applicant, Adrian Constantin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1955 and lives
in Brăila (Romania). In 2002 he was convicted with final effect in criminal proceedings
for an irregularity committed in his capacity as representative of a State-owned
company. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) (right to a fair trial) of the
Convention, he contended that, in the proceedings against him, the recaracterisation of
the facts by the Supreme Court during its deliberations had prevented him from
exercising his defence rights and that the assessment of the evidence by the Supreme
Court had rendered the criminal proceedings against him unfair.
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) (fairness)
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,200 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage)
Flamînzeanu v. Romania (no. 56664/08)*
The applicant, Marian Flamînzeanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1981. He is
currently serving a prison sentence for robbery with violence. Relying on Article 3
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:
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2 In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the
Convention.
(prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained of his poor conditions of
detention in Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons and in particular of overcrowded cells
and inadequate medical treatment (for a spinal injury and urological problems).
Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)
Bölükbaş and Others v. Turkey (no. 29799/02)*
Just satisfaction
The applicants are 15 Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul. The case concerned a plot
of agricultural land located in Belgrade Forest in Istanbul; the applicants claimed
ownership of the land on the basis of title deeds registered in 1933 under the name of
their ascendant. In a judgment of 9 February 2010 the Court held that there had been a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the
authorities’ refusal to enter the land in the land register under their names, on the
ground that it was part of State-owned forest. In its judgment today, the Court awarded
the applicants (except Mr Mustafa Bölükbaş, deceased), jointly, EUR 536,000 for
pecuniary damage, and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.
Çelik (Bozkurt) v. Turkey (no. 34388/05)
The applicant, Nezahat Nurcan Çelik (Bozkurt), is a Turkish national who was born in
1977 and lives in Istanbul. Charged with membership of an illegal organisation, she was
dismissed from her post as a primary school teacher in October 2000. Although the
criminal proceedings against her were subsequently suspended for lack of evidence, the
administrative proceedings brought by her to challenge the dismissal were rejected on
the ground that she had committed the offence in question. She complained that her
dismissal had violated her rights under Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).
Violation of Article 6 § 2 (fairness)
Just satisfaction: EUR 7,200 (non-pecuniary damage)
Peker v. Turkey (No. 2) (no 42136/06)
The applicant, Nurettin Peker, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in
Istanbul. On 19 December 2000 a number of security operations were conducted in
prisons in Turkey during which many detainees were either killed or injured. Mr Peker
alleged that he had been shot in the leg and beaten up by gendarmes during one such
operation carried out in Gebze Prison, where he had been detained at the time. He relied
in particular on Article 2 (right to life).
Violation of Article 2 (lack of effective investigation)
Just satisfaction: EUR 18,000 (non-pecuniary damage), EUR 3,500 (less the EUR 850
granted by way of legal aid by the Council of Europe) (costs and expenses)
Repetitive cases
The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.
Just satisfaction
Dedda and Fragassi v. Italy (no. 19403/03)*
Notarnicola v. Italy (no. 64264/01)*
In judgments of 21 September 2006 and 5 October 2006, the Court held that there had
been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the
expropriation of land belonging to the applicants. In its judgments today, the Court
awarded, jointly, EUR 99,000 to the applicants in the first case, and EUR 475,000 to the
2
applicants in the second case, in respect of pecuniary damage. The Court awarded the
applicants in the first case, jointly, EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and
EUR 15,000 for costs and expenses.
Słowik v. Poland (no. 31477/05)
This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the legal-aid lawyer assigned to him
in criminal proceedings against him for murder had refused to file a cassation appeal. He
relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right of access to court/right to legal assistance).
No violation of Article 6
Passanha Braamcamp Sobral v. Portugal (no. 10145/07)*
This case concerned the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants for
expropriation and the delay in calculating and paying it. They relied on Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Just satisfaction: EUR 350,000 (pecuniary damage), EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary
damage), EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)
Zolotareva and Others v. Russia (nos. 14667/05, 8046/05, 18801/05, 22673/05,
35094/05, 41741/05, 41955/05, 12594/06, 24148/06, 25030/06, 29207/06, 35527/06,
36526/06, 36722/06, 40478/06, 42952/06, 42976/06, 43721/06, 45039/06, 2406/07,
3459/07, 5670/07, 13462/07, 18996/07, 19650/07, 21952/07, 21959/07, 25299/07,
33073/07, 38214/07, 39434/07, 51385/07, 55274/07, 14752/08, 17050/08, 19776/08,
29608/08, 36283/08, 45832/08 and 6009/09)*
This case concerned in particular the delayed enforcement of final judgments in the
applicants’ favour ordering that they be allocated subsidised accommodation. They relied
on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of
property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) – all applicants (except two applicants in
application no. 42952/06)
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – all applicants (except two applicants in
application no. 42952/06)
Length-of-proceedings case
Domingues Loureiro and Others v. Portugal (no. 57290/08)*
In this case the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings for
compensation following a road-traffic accident, and of the ineffectiveness of an action in
tort (before the Portuguese courts) in order to complain of the length of proceedings.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Violation of Article 13
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 its
Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS
feeds.
Press contacts
[email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)
Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)
3
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
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.
4