CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 avril 2005

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA1312BB5 { width:150.81pt; 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   199 14.4.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1]   Emrullah Hattatoğlu v. Turkey (application no. 48719/99) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Emrullah Hattatoğlu, was a Turkish national who was born in 1925 and lived in Ordu (Turkey). After his death in 1999 the European Court of Human Rights authorised his heirs to continue the proceedings before it. The applicant was formerly the co-owner of land in Ordu which was expropriated in 1990.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property), the applicant complained of an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions on account of delay by the administrative authorities in paying additional compensation for the expropriated property, together with default interest which was inadequate in view of the very high rate of inflation in Turkey.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It ruled that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded his heirs 100,552 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).     Töre v. Turkey (no. 48095/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Nazif Töre, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.   In 1996 the applicant was prosecuted for membership of a proscribed organisation, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. On 16 December 1997 the Malatya State Security Court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was released for medical reasons on 10 October 2002.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings which had led to his conviction had been unfair, in particular because one of the members of the State Security Court had been a military judge.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the complaint relating to the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court, as it had already done in many similar cases. As to the other complaints about the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not in any event guarantee a fair trial to those subject to its jurisdiction; it accordingly ruled that it was not necessary to examine the complaints concerned.   The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 2,000 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.