CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 4 novembre 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .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   545 4.11.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Portugal and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (All three are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Geraldes Barba v. Portugal (application no. 61009/00) Sérgio Geraldes Barba is a Portuguese national who was born in 1918 and lives in Lisbon.   He had a 45% shareholding in a shipping company Socarmar which was nationalised in 1975 according to a legislative decree under which the shareholders were to receive compensation. In 1992 the Secretary of State for the Treasury determined the final amount of compensation and Treasury bonds were issued to the applicant. The applicant’s appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court concerning the amount awarded was dismissed on 30 June 2000.   In the interim the applicant had lodged an application with the European Commission of Human Rights. In a report of 4 July 1995, the Commission expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) on account of the time it had taken to determine the amount of compensation to be paid.   The applicant complained of the length of the domestic proceedings and alleged that delays in the assessment and payment of the compensation had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. He relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Noting that the proceedings had already taken eight years and four months when the Commission adopted its report and that the applicant had had to wait a further five years before they were brought to a close, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable, in breach of Article 6 § 1.   It further noted that the applicant was not issued with the Treasury bonds until 1992, almost 17 years after the company’s nationalisation. He had then had to wait almost eight years more for the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision. In those circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention the Court awarded the applicant 150,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Ayşe Öztürk v. Turkey (application no. 59244/99) Taydaş and Özer v. Turkey (application no. 48805/99)   Ayşe Öztürk is a Turkish national who was born in 1974. In 1998 she was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for being a member of an illegal organisation, the MLKP (the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party).   Işıl Taydaş and Esat Özer are Turkish nationals who were born in 1961 in 1963. At the material time they lived in Istanbul. They were sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for being members of Devrimci Sol (“Revolutionary Left”).   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal. Mr Taydaş and Mr Özer also complained of procedural unfairness.   The Court held unanimously in each case that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as the state security courts were not independent and impartial and that no separate examination of the complaint of procedural unfairness in the case of Mr Taydaş and Mr Özer was necessary. It ruled that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded EUR   2,000 in each case for costs and expenses.     ***   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.