issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 166 (2011)

04.10.2011

Judgments concerning Austria, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal,

Romania and Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14

judgments, seven of which (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final. The

others are Chamber judgments and are not final¹.

Repetitive cases²and length-of-proceedings cases, 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 (*).

Orlikowscy v. Poland (no. 7153/07)

The applicants, M. Orlikowski and J. Orlikowska, are Polish nationals who were born in

1962 and live in Częstochowa (Poland). The case concerned several sets of proceedings

to which the applicants had been a party to prevent their neighbours operating an

abbatoir (and subsequently a smoking chamber) next to their house. They complained in

particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the

European Convention on Human Rights about the excessive length of the related

proceedings.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: 7,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for

costs and expenses

Bădilă v. Romania (no. 31725/04)

The applicant, Aurel Badila, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in

Giurgiu (Romania). Mr Badila complained about the conditions of his detention in Giurgiu

and Jilava prisons as well as on the medical ward of Rahova prison between 2002 and

2009 while serving a seven-year sentence for attempted rape. Relying in particular on

Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Convention, he

complained in particular about overcrowding, poor hygiene and inadequate medical care

for an anal fissure.

Violation of Article 3

Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage

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.

Mete and Others v. Turkey (no. 294/08) *

Following the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of

Kurdistan, an illegal armed organisation), the PKK called on shops in Diyarbakır city

centre to keep their metal shutters down in protest. On 23 February 1999, according to

the applicants, police officers forced open the metal shutters at their shop, broke the

windows, damaged equipment and goods and proceeded to beat them. During the

ensuing altercation, police officers allegedly fired shots in the air and beat the applicants,

who were trying to defend themselves and their shop. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of

inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicants, Şeyhmus Mete, Zafer Koluman,

Heybet Mete and Nofa Koluman, complained that they were ill-treated by the police on

the premises of their own shop.

Two violations of Article 3

Just satisfaction: EUR 11,173 for non-pecuniary damage to each applicant and

EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses

Repetitive cases

The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.

Zafranas v. Greece (no. 4056/08)*

The applicants complained that their land had been expropriated with a view to building

a railway line, without any compensation being awarded. The State had claimed

ownership of the land in question and the applicants had not qualified as having acquired

the land by means of adverse possession. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(protection of property).

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Agache v. Romania (no. 35032/09)

The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour. He relied

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

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Kayacı and Others v. Turkey (no. 41485/05)*

The applicants complained about the decision by the Turkish courts to register the

Treasury as the owner of land which was rightfully theirs, without any compensation

having been paid to them. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of

property) and Article 6 (length of proceedings).

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Length-of-proceedings cases

In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length

of non-criminal proceedings.

Pfeifenberger v. Austria (no. 6379/08)

Stelios Schinas-Spilios Kaisaris Koinopraxia v. Greece (no. 23410/09)

Violanda Truocchio v. Italy (nos. 20198/03 and 40403/04)*

Mularz v. Poland (no. 9834/08)

Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (no. 8) (nos. 13912/08, 57103/08 and 58480/08)*

Büyükkol v. Turkey (no. 24280/09)

Ganimet Taşkın v. Turkey (no. 17993/09)

Kulmaç v. Turkey (no. 43874/06)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 in all the above cases and violation of Article 13 (right

to an effective remedy) in the case of Ferreira Alves

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

www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s

RSS feeds.

Press contacts

[email protected]e.int | 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)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

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.