CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 octobre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE66965E4 { width:345.57pt; display:inline-block } .sD507F2B1 { width:13.9pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sD2271D28 { width:56.8pt; display:inline-block } .sF9DFD290 { width:334.24pt; display:inline-block } .sFEAAE71C { width:327.57pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sF45EC1A3 { width:288.24pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s67794424 { width:58.14pt; display:inline-block } .sD46A638E { width:156.81pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   527 26.10.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 13 Konečný v. Czech Republic (application nos. 47269/99, 64656/01 and 65002/01) The applicant, Lubomír Konečný, is a Czech national, born in 1948 and living in Brno.   He complained that he did not have a fair hearing within a reasonable time before an impartial tribunal or an effective remedy. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights declared the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the absence of effective domestic remedies in this respect admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 4,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 450 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Terazzi v. Italy (no. 27265/95)             Just satisfaction The applicant, Terazzi, is a limited liability company formed under Italian law. It owns land in Rome.   In a Chamber judgment of 17 November 2002 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention on account of the restrictions placed on the applicant company’s land, and considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision.   The Court decided unanimously to award the applicant company EUR 850,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 25,000   for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 8,000 for those incurred before the Convention institutions. (The judgment is available only in French.)   AB Kurt Kellermann v. Sweden (no. 41579/98)   No violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant is a Swedish limited liability company, AB Kurt Kellermann, involved in the Swedish textile industry. It was declared bankrupt on 17 June 1998 and dissolved on 30   March 2001.   The applicant company complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, that that it did not have a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in a labour dispute with a trade union.   The Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation Article 3   No violation Article 5   No violation Article 8   No violation Article 13   No violation Article 14 Çaçan v. Turkey (no. 33646/96)   No violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Zahide Çaçan, is a Turkish national, born in 1952 and living in Switzerland.   She complained that Turkish security forces burned down her house and destroyed her belongings and that she was compelled to abandon her home and village. She relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). She argued that the destruction of her family home and possessions was the result of an official policy, which constituted discrimination of her status as a member of a national minority in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 3, 5, 8, 13, and 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 13, and no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Döner v. Turkey (no. 34498/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Murat Döner, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Van. He was accused of being a member of an illegal armed organisation and was sentenced by the Diyarbakır State Security Court to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, among other penalties. He complained that he had not had a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of Convention on account of the State Security Court’s lack of independence and impartiality and that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Miller and Others v. United Kingdom (nos. 45825/99 to 45827/99) Violation Article 6 § 1 Darin Miller was born in 1972 and lives in Stockton-on Tees, Michael Morrison was born in 1970 and lives in Aberdeen and Kevin Gillespie was born in 1974 and lives in Greenock.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to fair trial) that they had not been afforded a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. They considered their courts-martial to have lacked structural independence and objective impartiality.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicants EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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 ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] 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.