55913.07.2010 Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgments concerningMoldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Turkey The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*). Repetitive cases and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.  Just satisfactionManole and Others v. Moldova (application no. 13936/02)The applicants are 9 Moldovan nationals living in Chişinău. They are or were all employed by Tele-Radio Moldova (TRM), which was, at the relevant time, the only national television and radio station in Moldova. In a Chamber judgment of 17 September 2009, the Court found that the safeguards against political control of TRM had been inadequate and concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. However, it held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgment, the Court awarded each applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,940, jointly, for costs and expenses. Parnov v. Moldova (no. 35208/06)The applicant, Vladimir Parnov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1986 and lives in Chişinău. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, Mr Parnov alleged that he had been subjected to police brutality in March 2005, when he was arrested and detained on charges of possession and sale of marijuana, and complained that the investigation into that allegation had been inadequate. He was acquitted of the charges against him in February 2007.Violation of Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment)Violation of Article 3 (lack of an effective investigation)Violation of Article 13Just satisfaction: EUR 87 (pecuniary damage), EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 800 (costs and expenses) Giza v. Poland (no. 48242/06)The applicant, Józef Giza, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bystra Podhalańska (Poland). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Giza complained about the proceedings concerning his neighbour’s illegal construction of a sawmill and in particular about the non-enforcement of the judgment in which the neighbour had been ordered to demolish the mill.Violation of Article 6 § 1Just satisfaction: EUR 7,200 (non-pecuniary damage) Ahmed v. Romania (no. 34621/03)*The applicant, Hamdoon Ahmed Ahmed, is an Iraqi national who was born in 1962. His current place of residence is unclear. In March 2003 an order by the public prosecutor of Bucharest banned him from Romania for a period of 10 years. He was provisionally placed in a transit centre and then deported to Iraq. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens) he complained that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty and that his deportation had not been accompanied by the requisite procedural safeguards.Violation of Article 5 § 1Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) Fuşcă v. Romania (no. 34630/07)The applicant, Marius Fuşcă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Câmpulung Muscel (Romania). Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Fuşcă complained about the public authorities’ alleged failure to enforce his right to contact with his son, born in 1999, ever since the mother and the child left the couple’s home in 2005.No violation of Article 8 Tendam v. Spain (no. 25720/05)*The applicant, Hans Erwin Tendam, is a German national who was born in 1937 and lives in Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Spain). In 1986 he was prosecuted for theft and handling stolen goods but was acquitted. Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), he complained about the refusal by the Spanish authorities to grant him compensation for his detention during the criminal proceedings against him for theft. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) he also complained about the loss of and damage to property that had been confiscated from him in connection with the charge of handling stolen goods.Violation of Article 6 § 2Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1Just satisfaction: question concerning pecuniary damage reserved for decision at a later date; EUR 15,600 (non-pecuniary damage) Alipour and Hosseinzadgan v. Turkey (nos. 6909/08, 12792/08 and 28960/08)The applicants, Mohammad Jaber Alipour and Raha Hosseinzadgan, are Iranian nationals who were born in 1973 and 1978 respectively. Mr Alipour fled Iran and arrived in Turkey in November 2000 as he was being persecuted by the Iranian authorities. In June 2009 Ms Hosseinzadgan decided to withdraw her applications before the European Court of Human Rights as she had been granted refugee status by the Swedish Government. The Court therefore decided to strike her applications out of its list of cases. Mr Alipour now lives in Sweden where he has been granted refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He mainly complained that his removal to Iran would expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment and death. He also complained about the unlawfulness and conditions of his detention in the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre where he had been held. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security).(Mr Alipour) Violation of Article 5 § 1(Mr Alipour) No violation of Article 3Just satisfaction: to Mr Alipour EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage) Çerikçi v. Turkey (no. 33322/07)*The applicant, Turan Çerikçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul. He is a council employee in Beyoğlu. He was disciplined for unauthorised absence from work after participating, as a trade union member, in a national Labour Day celebration on 1 May 2007. His appeals were dismissed. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the disciplinary measure and the lack of a remedy by which to challenge it.Violation of Article 11Violation of Article 13Just satisfaction: EUR 1,800 (non-pecuniary damage) Dbouba v. Turkey (no. 15916/09)The applicant, Saafi Ben Fraj Dbouba, is a Tunisian national who was born in 1967. An active sympathiser of the Islamic Tendency Movement, now known as Ennahda, he left Tunisia in 1990 due to persecution by the security forces. He is currently being held in the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre in Kırkareli (Turkey) and has criminal proceedings pending against him for membership of Al-Qaeda. He alleged that his detention is unlawful and that, if extradited to his country of origin, he would be at real risk of torture and ill-treatment due to his affiliation with Ennahda. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).(If applicant expelled) Violation of Article 3 (treatment)Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4 and 5Just satisfaction: release of applicant at earliest possible date, EUR 11,000 (non‑pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,000 (costs and expenses) Karagöz and Others v. Turkey (nos.14352/05, 38484/05 and 38513/05)The applicants, Gönül Karagöz, Haydar Ballıkaya and Bekir Çadırcı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1965 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul. Arrested in 1997 on suspicion of involvement in terrorist organisations, the applicants alleged that they had been tortured while in police custody at Istanbul Security Headquarters and that the ensuing criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned had been ineffective. They relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture)Violation of Article 3 (lack of an effective investigation)(Mr Çadırcı) Violation of Article 13Just satisfaction:-non-pecuniary damage: to Ms Karagöz, EUR 48,000, to Mr Ballıkaya, 40,000 EUR, to Mr Çadırcı, EUR 30,000-costs and expenses: to Mr Ballıkaya and Mr Çadırcı, each, EUR 3,500  Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Panov v. Moldova (no. 37811/04)This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce a final judgment in her favour. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Fernandes Formigal de Arriaga and Others v. Portugal (nos. 24678/06, 25037/06, 25041/06, 25042/06, 27611/06, 30761/06, 36143/06, 38316/06, 38336/06, 41911/06, 44751/06, 51097/06, 5357/07, 5360/07, 6247/07 and 6261/07)*Monteiro de Barros de Mattos e Silva Adegas Coelho and Others v. Portugal (no. 25038/06)*These cases concerned the delay in calculating and paying the compensation awarded to the applicants. In both cases they relied in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).(Except Ms Ana Margarida Monteiro de Barros de Mattos e Silva Agedas Coelho) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  Length-of-proceedings cases Czajkowska and Others v. Poland (no. 16651/05)Kurtucu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 31301/05, 4532/06 and 19640/06)*In these cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.Violation of Article 6 § 1 – both casesViolation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) – 1st case *** These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). Press email@example.com / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)Nina Salomon (telephone: + 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.  Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17‑member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.