CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 octobre 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F5805B3 { width:315.32pt; display:inline-block } .sBDED65A0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sDA358BA6 { width:130.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s35554904 { width:90.15pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s3C3242F5 { width:427.6pt; display:inline-block } .s295C11BC { width:166.88pt; display:inline-block } .s3A48B5A5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s4A48296 { width:283.58pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s46657C0 { width:276.91pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD96410C6 { width:96.54pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .sAAA0B4EC { width:314.23pt; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s8C95CE8A { width:275.92pt; display:inline-block } .sA7D581B6 { width:451.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD587FE7B { width:42.58pt; display:inline-block } .s4E981FA8 { width:335.33pt; display:inline-block } .sF96A92BE { width:45.46pt; display:inline-block } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   515 6.10.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, Russia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Repetitive cases (in which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights) can be found at the end of this press release.   Sgattoni v. Italy (application no 77132/01) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Francesco Sgattoni, is an Italian national who is 68 years old and lives in Grottammare (Italy).   The applicant was the director of a company, B. S.r.l., which was declared insolvent in 1991. He was appointed liquidator of the company on 29 January 2001. In the meantime, in September 2000, the insolvency order was set aside on appeal and an order made for assets to be returned to the company. In March 2001 Fermo District Court declared the company insolvent. The company appealed; the appeal proceedings were still pending in May 2005.   On 4 April 2002 the applicant lodged an application under the “Pinto Act”, submitting that after the insolvency order had been set aside, the company’s assets had not been returned to it until 23   January 2001. Aquila Court of Appeal dismissed the application on the ground that the length of the proceedings had been reasonable. In January 2005 an appeal on points of law by the applicant was still pending before the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained in particular that the length of the proceedings had infringed the company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. He also alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights considered that at the time when he had lodged the application under the “Pinto Act” on 4 April 2002, the applicant would not have had an effective opportunity to complain of the personal disqualifications resulting from the company’s insolvency, in particular because of the length of the proceedings. It therefore dismissed the Italian Government’s objection that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as the proceedings were still pending in the Court of Cassation.   The Court declared the application admissible as regards the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 solely in respect of the period after 29 January 2001, when the applicant was appointed liquidator, and inadmissible as regards the complaints under Article 8, Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. Having regard to the evidence before it, the Court considered that the length of the insolvency proceedings, approximately four years and three months, had not upset the balance that had to be struck between the general interest in ensuring the payment of the company’s creditors and the company’s interest in securing the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Lukenda v. Slovenia (no. 23032/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Franjo Lukenda, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Slovenia.   On 6 January 1994 the applicant was injured at work in a lignite mine. Since then, he has been disabled and in receipt of disability benefits. His employer took out accident insurance for him with an insurance company ZT. His disability was assessed at 13 %. ZT paid partial disability benefits from 1994 until 96.   In December 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT claiming a 7 % increase in the disability benefits based on the findings of an expert medical opinion.   An independent medical expert appointed by the court to determine the extent of the applicant’s disability submitted a report in April 2001. In May 2001 the applicant increased his claim by 2.5%. In February 2002 the expert submitted an additional opinion, which was served on the parties. In December 2002 the applicant’s attorneys received the judgment, partly upholding the applicant’s claim. Both parties appealed. On 19 February 2004 Celje Higher Court ( Višje sodišče v Celju ) allowed the applicant’s appeal in part. It increased the level of disability benefits and awarded the applicant costs and expenses. On 8 April 2004 the judgment was served on the applicant’s attorneys.   The total duration of the proceedings was thus five years, three months and nine days for two levels of jurisdiction.   The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to which he was a party and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of those proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   In the Court’s view, the overall length of the proceedings in the applicant’s case was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement. In particular, the duration of the proceedings before the first-instance court, which exceeded four years, was not compatible with the standards set by the Court’s case-law. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   The Court found that the Government had failed to establish that an administrative action, a tort claim, a request for supervision or a constitutional appeal, taken separately or together could be regarded as effective remedies. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   In view of the persistent backlog in the Slovenian courts, the Court found it clear that the length of judicial proceedings in Slovenia remained a major problem. Furthermore, there were approximately 500 similar cases currently pending before the Court against Slovenia.   The Court reiterated that, having ratified the European Convention of Human Rights, the Slovenian State had assumed the obligation to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of the Convention. The State had a general obligation to solve the problems that had led to the Court finding a violation of the Convention, which should be their primary goal.   It followed that a judgment finding a violation imposed on the State a legal obligation not only to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction under Article 41, but also to select general and/or individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects. Subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, Slovenia remained free to choose the means by which it would discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention, provided that such means were compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court’s judgment.   The Court therefore held, by six votes to one, that the violations found originated in the malfunctioning of domestic legislation and practice and that the Slovenian State had, through appropriate legal measures and administrative practices, to secure the right to a trial within a reasonable time.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 965 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 2 (death of applicants’ son) Violation of Article 2 (inadequate investigation) No violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 No violation of Article 6 § 3 H.Y. and Hü. Y. v. Turkey (no. 40262/98)   No violation of Article 14 The applicants, H.Y. and Hü.Y., are Turkish nationals who were born in 1951 and 1953 respectively and live in Istanbul. Their 15-year-old son Mahmut died in Diyarbakır Military Hospital, where he had been transferred while in police custody.   Mahmut Y. was arrested at 10.45 p.m. on 21 November 1997, following reports that he was a PKK militant. He was initially taken into custody at the security police headquarters and shortly afterwards was transferred to the Siirt gendarmerie station. The following day he was examined twice by a doctor, who found no traces of violence or blows on his body.   According to the report drawn up that day by the gendarmes, at about 6 a.m. on 24   November 1997 Mahmut Y. fell as he was walking around the observation room, banging his head on the floor. He was examined by a doctor and taken by ambulance to Siirt Military Hospital, before being transferred by helicopter to Diyarbakır Military Hospital, where he died at 4 a.m. on 5 December 1997. On the same day an investigation was opened, in the course of which an autopsy was carried out. The autopsy found that Mahmut Y. had died as a result of acute subdural haematoma possibly caused by acute trauma such as a fall. During the investigation various steps were taken: witnesses were questioned and expert medical assessments were carried out in order to determine the circumstances surrounding the death and its causes.   In February 1998 the applicants lodged a complaint against the gendarmes in whose custody their son had been detained, alleging torture. On 9 November 1999 the public prosecutor made an order discontinuing the proceedings on the ground that there was insufficient evidence of the gendarmes’ guilt. The order was revoked in January 2000 by the President of the Batman Assize Court, and in April 2000 the Siirt public prosecutor indicted seven gendarmes who had been responsible for the deceased during his time in custody. On 29 January 2002 the Assize Court acquitted the defendants for lack of evidence. An appeal on points of law by the applicants is currently pending before the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants alleged that their son had been ill-treated and had died as a result of the injuries inflicted on him while he was in police custody. They also complained that the authorities had failed to carry out a thorough and effective investigation into the circumstances in which he had died. They further alleged a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), and of Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken together with Article 2. . The Court noted that, according to the medical reports, the trauma resulting in the applicants’ son’s death had been caused either by a direct impact to the head such as a blow or by a fall, whether accidental or provoked by another person. Admittedly, the fact that the forensic medical experts were unable to reach a conclusion meant that doubts subsisted as to the cause of the trauma. However, the experts had not observed any trace of violence on Mahmut’s body and had pointed out that there was “no medical evidence of trauma to any other parts of the deceased’s head or body”. The Court further noted that eyewitnesses had corroborated the view that he had fallen by accident.   Having regard to the evidence before it, the Court considered that the applicants’ allegations that their son had died after being tortured by the security forces were not based on concrete and verifiable facts and were not corroborated to a decisive extent by any medical findings, witness statements or other evidence. In those circumstances, it considered that such a conclusion was more a matter of speculation, based on suspicions that were admittedly legitimate but were not supported by any tangible evidence. The Court therefore held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 2.   The Court observed that a large number of investigative measures had been taken in the present case, that the investigation had been instituted promptly by the authorities, and that they had worked actively on it. However, it considered it regrettable that, owing to the lack of thoroughness with which the investigation had been conducted, it had not been possible to establish with a higher degree of certainty the cause of the cranial trauma that had resulted in Mahmut   Y.’s death. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that the authorities had not conducted an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2.   The Court further noted that Mahmut Y. had initially been detained in police custody for approximately 55 hours without being brought before a judge or other law officer, a period that did not appear excessive in the light of its case-law, and had subsequently been taken to hospital while in a coma. In view of the wholly exceptional circumstances of the applicant’s case, it could not be said that the time that elapsed had been excessive or that Mahmut Y. had been denied the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5.   Observing that no criminal proceedings had been brought against Mahmut Y. and that none of the evidence in its possession substantiated the applicants’ complaints that their son had been killed on account of his political opinions or ethnic origin, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 3 or of Article 14 taken together with Article 2.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 20,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,170 for costs and expenses, less the sum of EUR 685   already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 2 (as regards the death)   Violation of Article 2 (as regards the investigation)   No violation of Article 3   No violation of Article 5   No violation of Article 14 Nesibe Haran v. Turkey (no. 28299/95)   No violation of Article 18 The applicant, Nesibe Haran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   On 24 December 1994 the applicant’s husband did not come home from work. Three days later a co-villager came to the applicant’s house and told her that an identity check had been carried out at the construction site where her husband worked, that an argument had ensued and that her husband had been taken away by the police. The applicant tried to file a petition with the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court in order to learn of his whereabouts, but was prevented by police officers standing outside. She and other family members tried to see the public prosecutor for about a month without success. She then started visiting several prisons in order to find out whether anyone had seen her husband. She met one person who told her that he had seen İhsan Haran in custody.   The applicant alleged that State officials were responsible for the disappearance of her husband. She relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination), 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) and 34 (right of individual petition).   The Court considered that the actual circumstances in which İhsan Haran disappeared remained a matter of speculation and assumption and that, accordingly, there was an insufficient evidentiary basis on which to conclude that he was, beyond reasonable doubt, secretly detained and killed by, or with the connivance of, State agents. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, there had been no violation of Article 2 on that account.   The Court noted that an investigation into the applicant’s allegations began after the communication of the application to the Turkish Government, i.e. two years after the events. The Court found that there were striking omissions in the conduct of the investigation. In particular the Court observed that it was not until 29 February 2000 and 15 May 2001 that the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office tried to obtain statements of the applicant and other family members. The Court could not understand why the statements were never taken from İhsan Haran’s brothers who were in prison and under the full authority of the State. Furthermore, the only eye-witness to the alleged apprehension of İhsan Haran by police officers was also never heard by the authorities. The Court therefore considered that the national authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of the State’s procedural obligation under Article 2 to protect the right to life.   As to the applicant’s complaints concerning the lack of protection in domestic law for the right to life, in view of its previous findings, the Court held, unanimously, that it was unnecessary to reach any separate finding on that issue.   The Court observed that the applicant did not witness the alleged events leading to the disappearance of İhsan Haran. Nor could she have been considered to have undertaken the pursuit of numerous enquiries and petitions to find out about İhsan Haran’s fate. In that connection, the Court found that she had failed to demonstrate that she was involved in the ongoing investigations pertaining to the disappearance of İhsan Haran.   In view of the above, the Court considered that while the uncertainty and apprehension suffered by the applicant over a prolonged and continuing period caused her anguish and suffering, it could not be held that her suffering reached a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which might be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human rights violation. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3.   As to the applicant’s complaints under Article 5, the Court referred to the fact that it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that any State agent was involved in the alleged abduction of İhsan Haran. There was therefore no factual basis on which to conclude that there had been a violation of this provision. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5. The Court held, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article 13.   It also considered the applicant’s complaints under Articles 14 and 18 unsubstantiated and held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of these articles.   The Court found that the complaint under Article 34 was not specified early enough to allow an exchange of observations on the subject and that it was not necessary to examine the matter separately.   It awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Tanrıkulu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 29918/96, 29919/96 and 30169/96) The applicants, Sinan Tanrıkulu, Servet Ayhan and Fırat Anlı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1973 and 1971 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Mr Tanrıkulu is a lawyer and a member of the Human Rights Association. Mr Ayhan is also a member of the Human Rights Assocation and Mr Anlı is a lawyer and was the president of the HADEP Diyarbakır provincial headquarters at the time of the events.   On 27 February 1995 police officers searched the headquarters of the HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi-People’s Democracy Party) and the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association and arrested the applicants together with 11 other people after they had received information that the PKK were meeting there. They were later remanded in custody   According to the police they seized eight ERNK (National Liberation Front of Kurdistan) and PKK flags, a PKK emblem, 65 books and nine VHS videotapes about the PKK, seven audio tapes and documents addressed to the Secretary General of the European Parliament. They also found a pistol on one of the suspects.   In March 1995 the public prosecutor at the state security court requested that the applicants and other detainees be convicted and sentenced for membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The state security court later acquitted them of all charges and in December 1997 the Diyarbakır Assize Court awarded the first applicant compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage to compensate the periods he spent in detention.   The applicants all complained about the length of their detention in custody and the first and the third applicants further complained about the unlawfulness of their arrest and detention in custody relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court considered that the applicants’ arrest was lawful and that they were detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c).   As to the applicants’ complaint that they were questioned by gendarmes and not a public prosecutor, the Court noted that according to Articles 58 and 59 of the Advocacy Law, criminal investigations against lawyers were only to be carried out by public prosecutors when the crime had been committed during the exercise of their profession. The fact that the gendarmes interrogated the applicants did not invalidate the domestic legal basis for their actual arrest and subsequent detention. The Court therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1.   The Court considered that, despite the difficulties involved in investigating terrorist offences, the applicants’ detention for ten days before being brought before a judge or other judicial officer was not strictly required by the crisis relied on by the Government. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 5 § 3.   The Court awarded EUR 6,000 to Sinan Tanrıkulu and Fırat Anlı for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. It awarded EUR 5,000 to Servet Ayhan for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 jointly to Sinan Tanrıkulu and Servet Ayhan, and EUR 3,400 to Fırat Anlı for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive Cases   The Court has already pronounced judgment in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention as the following:   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Dražić v. Croatia (no. 11044/03)   Mežnarić v. Croatia (No. 2) (no. 10955/03) Papuk Trgovina d.d. v. Croatia (no. 2708/03) The applicants are Croatian nationals except for Papuk Trgovina d.d. which is a joint stock company with its head office in Pakrac, (Croatia).   They all brought civil proceedings for damages against the State, which were stayed in 2000 and 2001, under the 1999 Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act, and complained that the enactment of this Act violated Article 6 § 1 (access to court).   Considering that, following a legislative amendment, the Croatian courts had not determined the applicants’ civil claims for prolonged periods of time, the Court   held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   It awarded EUR 12,000 in the Dražić case and EUR 4,000 in the Mežnarić and Papuk Trgovina d.d. cases for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Androsov v. Russia (no. 63973/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Nikolay Fedorovich Androsov, a Russian national, was born in 1948 and lives in the Limanskiy District of the Astrakhan Region (Russia).   In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. The applicant became ill from the effects of radiation and was awarded compensation, to be paid monthly.   The applicant considered that the amount of compensation had been determined incorrectly. In 1999 he successfully brought proceedings against the Welfare Office of the Limanskiy District of the Astrakhan Region.   On 3 November 1999 Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region delivered a judgment upholding his claim. On 14 December 1999 the Astrakhan Regional Court, acting on appeal, upheld the judgment as to the amount of the monthly payment and the principal debt, but reversed the penalty award. The judgment entered into force. Both parties lodged requests for supervisory review of the courts’ decisions and the enforcement proceedings were stayed.   Following a request made by the Astrakhan Regional Office for Welfare Payments, the President of the Astrakhan Regional Court brought an extraordinary appeal against the judgments of 3 November 1999 and 14 December 1999. On 27 December 2000 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed both of these judgments. The case was remitted to the District Court for a fresh examination.   The applicant complained about the failure to enforce a judgment awarding him compensation, the quashing of that judgment through the supervisory review procedure and that the proceedings lasted too long.   He relied on Article   6 §   1 (access to court) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Concerning Article 6 § 1, the Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for one year and 12 days, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification.   In addition, the Court held that the quashing of a final judgment was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. In quashing court decisions which had become final, the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court had infringed the applicants’ right to a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 § 1.   The Court, held, unanimously, therefore, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in both the delay in enforcement and the supervisory review of the final judgment in his favour. It also held that there was no need to examine the complaint about overall length of proceedings under Article   6.   Mr Androsov was awarded EUR 853 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 50 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 Shilayayev v. Russia (no. 9647/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aleksandr Anatolyevich Shilyayev, a Russia national, was born in 1959 and lives in the Perm Region (Russia).   In October 1997 the Perm Regional Court sentenced the applicant to 19 years’ imprisonment for murder and rape for which he was later acquitted. He then brought proceedings against the State, claiming damages for wrongful conviction and unlawful detention. On 20 July 2001 Lysva Town Court of the Perm Region examined and granted his action and he was awarded a sum in compensation. On 11 September 2001 the decision was upheld by the Perm Regional Court and came into force.   The judgment was not enforced until 15 October 2003.   Mr Shilayayev complained about the prolonged failure to enforce judgments awarding him compensation, relying on Article   6 §   1 (access to court) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court held the complaint about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment of 20   July 2001 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Concerning Article 6 § 1, the Court noted that the judgment in question was not enforced for two years, one month and four days, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, therefore, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. and awarded Mr Shilayayev EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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. [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.