issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 198 (2013)

02.07.2013

Judgments concerning Hungary, Latvia, and Turkey

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

Chamber judgments¹, none of which is final.

One repetitive case², with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of

the press release. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).

Fehér v. Hungary (application no. 69095/10)

The applicant, Sándor Fehér, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in

Szolnok (Hungary). The case concerned his complaint about overcrowding during his

pre-trial detention on robbery charges from September 2006 to October 2008. Relying

on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention

on Human Rights, he alleged that his detention in cramped conditions with only limited

time spent outside his cell had been inhuman and degrading. He was ultimately

convicted of robbery in October 2009 and sentenced to six years and eight months’

imprisonment.

Violation of Article 3 (conditions of detention)

Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and

expenses)

R. SZ. v. Hungary (no. 41838/11)

The applicant, Mr R. SZ., is a Hungarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in

Budapest. He was employed by a State-owned limited company for 11 years until July

2010 when his contract was terminated by mutual agreement. Relying in particular on

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the Convention, he complained that

part of his severance pay had been taxed at a rate of 98%.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 25,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,400

(costs and expenses)

Holodenko v. Latvia (no. 17215/07)

The applicant, Jurijs Holodenko, is a Latvian national who was born in 1969 and lives in

Liepaja. The case concerned Mr Holodenko’s allegation that police officers had punched

and kicked him in the head and body during his arrest at an acquaintance’s apartment

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

In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the

Convention.

and later when taken to the police station. Searched during the incident, Mr Holodenko

was allegedly found to have narcotic substances on him and he was subsequently

convicted in October 2007 of possession of illegal drugs and sentenced to three years’

imprisonment. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he

complained in particular that the police had used excessive force against him during both

his arrest and ensuing detention at the police station and that the authorities’

investigation into his allegations had been inadequate.

Two violations of Article 3 (excessive use of force against the applicant; inadequate

investigation)

Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)

Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey (no. 44125/06)

The applicants, Gülbahar Özer, Yusuf Özer, Halil Esen, Hüseyin Esen and Abdurrahman

Çınar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963, 1965, 1947, 1952 and 1946

respectively. Gülbahar Özer and Yusuf Özer live in İzmir, Halil Esen and Hüseyin Esen

live in Mardin and Abdurrahman Çınar lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). The case concerned

the killing of the applicants’ five children, aged between 13 and 24, by soldiers in

south-east Turkey in 2005. The ensuing investigation conducted by the authorities

concluded that the applicants’ children, terrorists and members of the PKK, had opened

fire on the soldiers and had been killed in the ensuing armed clash. Relying in particular

on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants alleged that the soldiers’ use of force against

their children had been excessive and that the investigation into the incident, if it had

been carried out adequately by, for example, taking swabs for gunpowder residue, would

have shown that their children had been unarmed and could not possibly have opened

fire on the soldiers.

Violation of Article 2 (death of the applicants’ children; ineffective investigation)

Just satisfaction: EUR 65,000 to each of the applicants (non-pecuniary damage) and

EUR 5,930 to the applicants jointly (costs and expenses).

Mustafa Aldemir v. Turkey (no. 53087/07)*

The applicant, Mustafa Aldemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in

Diyarbakır (Turkey). The case concerned his complaint that he was disabled since being

wounded by gunfire from soldiers who mistook him for a terrorist while they were lying

in wait during an operation. In December 2005, when he was on his way to a

neighbouring village at night and in the rain, Mr Aldemir was struck by a bullet in his

right leg. Following an operation, a medical report indicated that his right leg was three

centimetres shorter than the other, resulting in a 10% rate of disability and obliging him

to use crutches. A criminal investigation showed that the soldiers lying in wait near the

scene of the accident had been informed that a group of terrorists would be passing by

and their Lieutenant had wrongly assumed that Mr Aldemir was one of them. The

criminal proceedings ended on 4 December 2006 when they were discontinued by a

military prosecutor. He established that the Lieutenant had been convinced of the

legitimacy of his act and had fired with the sole aim of defending himself and the other

soldiers, the applicant’s umbrella having been mistaken for a weapon on account of the

poor weather conditions. Mr Aldemir complained in particular of a violation of Article 3

(prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/no effective investigation).

Two violations of Article 3 (ill-treatment; ineffective investigation)

Just satisfaction: EUR 19,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and

expenses)

Repetitive case

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

Uçan and Others v. Turkey (no. 37377/05)*

In this case, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of the

proceedings against them.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of the proceedings against the applicants)

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 here:

www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press.

Press contacts

[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

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

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

Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)

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.