CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA022DBAC { width:60.12pt; display:inline-block } .s926B950E { width:38.14pt; display:inline-block } .s35A86883 { width:131.46pt; display:inline-block } .sBA40FC9E { width:135.49pt; display:inline-block } .sE6788080 { width:88.13pt; display:inline-block } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s927A990D { width:58.12pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s59E9B071 { width:139.48pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s7FF55C1E { width:20.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3286B780 { width:140.8pt; display:inline-block } .s17F3E669 { width:28.13pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sDFB91797 { width:79.47pt; display:inline-block } .sC374D167 { width:59.46pt; display:inline-block } .sB223DF4 { width:60.17pt; 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   559 20.10.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Russia, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 Chamber judgments, none of which are 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.   Emil Hristov v. Bulgaria (no. 52389/99)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Emil Iosifov Hristov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Kurdzhali (Bulgaria).   On 25 June 1999 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. On 4 November 1999, he was found guilty of extortion, inflicting a light bodily injury and of using a firearm.   The grounds for imposing the pre-trial detention were stated as “the social severity of the crime, the personality of the offender, the high probability that he would abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation”. The applicant filed six appeals against his detention. In his appeals he stated, among other things, that he did not have a criminal record, that he had a permanent address and that all the evidence in the case had already been collected. The court relied on the fact that he had been charged with a serious crime and concluded that there was a risk that he might abscond, obstruct the investigation or re-offend. The applicant spent four months and nine days in pre-trial detention.   He complained about his detention, relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights declared the complaints concerning the applicant being promptly brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, the scope of judicial review of his continued detention, the speed in examining his appeals and whether his appeal of 8 September 1999 was examined by a court admissible and rejected the remainder of the application as inadmissible.   The Court found, as it had done in previous judgments which concerned the system of detention pending trial, as it existed in Bulgaria until 1 January 2000, that neither the investigator, nor the prosecutor were sufficiently independent and impartial, in view of the practical role they played in the investigation and the prosecution and the prosecutor’s potential participation as a party to the criminal proceedings. It followed that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of Article 5 § 3.   The Court noted that when examining the applicant’s applications for release, the courts apparently relied on the Supreme Court’s practice and they disregarded as irrelevant the applicant’s arguments concerning the alleged lack of danger of absconding, collusion and committing crimes. However, the Court considered that his arguments were not frivolous and merited examination. It followed, that the domestic authorities failed to provide judicial control over the applicant’s detention on remand of the scope required by Article 5 § 4. There had, therefore, been a violation of that provision.   In view of that finding, the Court did not deem it necessary to inquire whether these defective judicial reviews were provided speedily nor whether all of them resulted in a final judicial decision.     The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and awarded the applicant EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Rumen Todorov v. Bulgaria (no. 50411/99)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Rumen Gichev Todorov, is a 29 year old Bulgarian national who lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   On 19 September 1997 he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of the theft of two television sets with others. He had previous convictions for similar offences. During the proceedings, the applicant applied for bail, but his application was turned down on the grounds that he had been charged with a serious offence with intent for which detention was compulsory and that, in view of the evidence in the case file and his previous convictions for theft, there was a risk of his reoffending or seeking to pervert the course of justice.   On 24 March 1999 Plovdiv District Court found him guilty of the charges and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The judgment was quashed on 8 July 1999 owing to procedural irregularities and remitted for further investigation. The applicant made four applications for release. On 15 March 2000 the court granted his application and ordered his release.   The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He further contended that he had been unable to apply for a review of the lawfulness of his detention and deprived of the opportunity to appear before the body that had heard his applications. He relied on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention came to two years, two months and two weeks. He had been held on the basis of a statutory presumption that arose by virtue of Article 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which laid down that pre-trial detention was justified for offences of a certain gravity unless it was established that there was no risk of the suspect’s absconding, seeking to hinder the investigation or reoffending. However, the court that had heard the bail applications had also cited as a reason for refusing bail the risk of the applicant’s reoffending in view of his previous convictions for theft. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that that risk constituted a relevant and sufficient reason for the applicant’s detention.   However, it found that the authorities had not conducted the proceedings with the promptness which the applicant’s position as a remand prisoner required. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court noted that the court had responded to the main points raised by the applicant in his applications for bail and therefore considered that the scope of the review carried out by that court satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 4.   However, since the applicant was denied the opportunity to appear in person at a hearing whose outcome was decisive to the issue of continued detention, he was prevented from benefiting from the guarantees afforded by Article 5 § 4. The Court further noted that on a number of occasions, the applicant’s bail applications were adjourned and found that they had not been examined “speedily”. In those circumstances, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded the applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Groshev v. Russia (no. 69889/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Yuriy Vasilyevich Groshev, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Klimovsk (Russia).   In February 1999 the applicant brought an action against the Moscow Region health department, seeking to declare invalid some data in his medical records. His claims, however, were dismissed and he appealed. His appeal was rejected at a hearing held on 4 April 2000. Neither party was present at the hearing. The applicant complained that he had received the summons the day after the hearing had taken place.   He complained that he did not have an opportunity to attend an appeal hearing concerning his action to correct his medical records. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights declared, unanimously, the complaint concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to apprise the applicant of the appeal hearing in good time, admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   The Court observed that, according to the postmark, the applicant received the summons for the appeal hearing one day after it had taken place. The Court also noted that there was nothing in the appeal judgment to suggest that the appeal court examined the question whether the applicant had been duly summoned and, if he had not, whether the examination of the appeal should have been adjourned.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. No award was made for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Ataoğlu v. Turkey (no. 77111/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kılıçoğlu v. Turkey (no. 41136/98)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Mehmet Mübarek Küçük v. Turkey (no. 7035/02) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5   Ataoğlu v. Turkey Maruf Ataoğlu is a 41 year old Turkish national who lives in Istanbul. He was arrested and taken into police custody on 11 April 2001 in connection with an investigation into illegal accounting and management practices within Esenyurt Municipal Council. On 18   April 2001 he was brought before a judge, who remanded him in custody. He was prosecuted and the criminal proceedings are still pending in the Turkish courts.   Kılıçoğlu v. Turkey   Haydar Kılıçoğlu is a 60 year old Turkish national who lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was arrested and taken into police custody on 31 August 1997 for allegedly assisting the PKK. On 9 September 1997 he was brought before a judge, who remanded him in custody. Diyarbakır State Security Court acquitted the applicant for lack of evidence in November 2000.   Mehmet Mübarek Küçük v. Turkey Mehmet Mübarek Küçük is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was arrested and taken into police custody on 19 June 2001 in connection with an investigation into a criminal association set up to organise fraud in a higher-education entrance examination. On 25 June 2001 he was brought before a judge, who remanded him in custody. He remained in custody continued until September 2001. He was prosecuted and the criminal proceedings are still pending in the Turkish courts.   In these three cases, the applicants complained about the length of their detention in police custody, which they alleged had exceeded the period permissible under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). In the cases of Kılıçoğlu v. Turkey and Mehmet Mübarek Küçük v. Turkey , the applicant also complained under Article 5 § 4 (right to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of detention is decided speedily) of the lack of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulfulness of their detention by the police. Lastly, in the case of Mehmet Mübarek Küçük v. Turkey , Mr Küçük alleged a violation of Article 5 § 5 on the ground that he had not received any compensation for his detention.   The Court noted that Mr Ataoğlu had spent seven days in police custody, Mr Kılıçoğlu nine days and Mr Küçük six days. It could not accept that there had been any need for the applicants to be detained for that length of time before they were brought before a judge and held unanimously in all three cases that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   As to the lack of the remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the detention by the police, the Court pointed out that it had already held in a number of previous cases that the remedy under Article 128 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on which the Government had sought to rely did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 4. The Court consequently held that there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 4 in the cases of Kılıçoğlu v. Turkey and Mehmet Mübarek Küçük v. Turkey .   Lastly, the Court noted that victims of detention that did not comply with the Convention did not have sufficiently certain rights to reparation under Turkish law. It consequently held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5 in the case of Mehmet Mübarek Küçük v. Turkey .   With regard to just satisfaction, the Court made awards for non-pecuniary damage of EUR   2,000 to Mr   Ataoğlu, EUR 3,250 to Mr Kılıçoğlu and EUR 1,500 to Mr Küçük. For costs and expenses it awarded EUR 500 to Mr Ataoğlu and Mr Küçük and EUR 1,250 to Mr   Kılıçoğlu, less EUR 630 he had already received in legal aid from the Council of Europe. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Fatma Tunç v. Turkey (no. 16608/02)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 The applicant, Fatma Tunç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980. She is imprisoned in Gebze Prison (Turkey).   On 10 October 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of the PKK and detained in police custody at the Anti-Terrorism Branch of Istanbul State Security Directorate.   On 16 October 2001 she was brought before the public prosecutor, and thereafter before the investigating judge of Istanbul State Security Court. She was subsequently convicted of being a member of an illegal armed organisation and sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   She complained about the length of her detention in police custody and that she did not have an effective remedy by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention or access to compensation. She relied on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court had already accepted on a number of occasions that the investigation of terrorist offences undoubtedly presented the authorities with special problems. That did not mean, however, that the authorities had carte blanche to arrest suspects and detain them in police custody, free from effective control by the courts whenever they considered that there had been a terrorist offence.   Even supposing that the activities of which the applicant was accused were linked to a terrorist threat, the Court could not accept that it was necessary to detain her for six days without judicial intervention. Finding that she had not been brought promptly before a judge, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court noted that the applicant was unable to challenge her detention in police custody, since the six-day period was in conformity with the Turkish law at the relevant time. Finding that the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention had not been decided “speedily”, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 5 § 4.   The Court observed that, as the applicant’s detention in police custody was in conformity with domestic law, she did not have a right to compensation. The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Karagöz v. Turkey (no. 5701/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Gönül Karagöz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey).   On 22 February 1997 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of Istanbul Security Directorate and was placed in custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal armed organisation, the MLKP (Marxist Leninist Communist Party).   On 1 April 1997 the state security court started proceedings against the applicant and prolonged her detention in view of “the nature of the offences” to which she stood accused. She made numerous requests for release which were all dismissed for similar reasons, added to which were “the state of the evidence” and “the duration of the detention”. She was released on 29 June 2001 due to ill-health.   On 16 October 2002 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation quashed that conviction and, following the abolition of Istanbul State Security Court, the case was transferred to the Istanbul 11th Assize Court, where it is still pending.   The applicant complained about the length of time she had spent in detention on remand and the length of the criminal proceedings brought against her. She relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court noted a lack of sufficient reasoning in the domestic court’s decisions. It noted that Istanbul State Security Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand using identical, stereotyped terms. Furthermore, it found that the danger of absconding could not solely be assessed on the basis of the severity of the sentence risked, but had to be balanced with other elements. Furthermore, the Court found that the state of evidence could not be used to justify the applicant’s lengthy detention which had lasted over four years and four months. The Court, therefore, decided unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court observed that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had already lasted more than eight years. As it had done in many previous similar cases, the Court found that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. It held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)       Violation of Article 10 Osman Özçelik and Others v. Turkey (no. 55391/00)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Osman Özçelik, Kemal Bilget, Kemal Okutan, Bahattin Günel and Murat Bozlak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952, 1952, 1957, 1946 and 1952 respectively and live in Ankara. At the material time Mr Bilget was the Vice-President of the Democracy Party ( Demokrasi Partisi – DEP ) and the other applicants members of its executive board.   In June 1993 Mr   Bilget made a speech at the DEP ’s first congress in his capacity as Vice-President of the party in which he sought to set out the party’s objectives by reference to the Kurdish people’s desire for freedom. In August that year, the applicants signed a declaration entitled “ Demokrasi Partisinin Barış Çağısı ” (“The Democracy Party’s Appeal for Peace”) and helping to produce posters with the slogan “ Savaş Değil, Demokrat Çözüm ” (“Not war but a democratic solution”). These took the form of a political appeal addressed to “the workers and to defenders of human rights and peace” with a view to obtaining a ceasefire between the security forces and the PKK and recognition of the Kurdish identity.   The applicants were prosecuted for disseminating separatist propaganda. On 17 November 1998 Ankara state security court found them guilty as charged. The sentences handed down to all the applicants except Mr   Bilget included one year’s imprisonment for signing the declaration and helping to produce the posters. Mr   Bilget was given a two-year sentence as he had also made the speech. Under Law no.   4454 concerning the suspension of pending cases and penalties in media-related offences, the sentence imposed on the applicants for signing the declaration and helping to produce the posters was suspended for three years.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complained that the criminal convictions violated their right to freedom of expression. They also complained under Article   6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the length of the proceedings leading to their conviction and of procedural unfairness in that a military judge had sat on the bench of the state security court.   The Court found that the reasons stated by the Turkish courts could not be considered by themselves sufficient to justify the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. The applicants had expressed their views in their capacity as politicians and as players on the Turkish political scene. They had not encouraged the use of violence or armed resistance or insurrection and had not engaged in hate speech, which, in the Court’s view, was an essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court added that because of their dominant position, Governments should be slow to resort to the criminal law, especially when other means were available to respond to unjustified attacks or criticism by opponents. Is accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation Article 10   It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security court.   Lastly, it noted that the proceedings had lasted approximately five years and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that period excessive and in breach of the “reasonable-time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   As regards just satisfaction, the Court awarded Mr   Bilget EUR 572 for pecuniary damage and EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded each of Mr Özçelik, Mr Günel, Mr   Bozlak and Mr Okutanmade EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. Lastly it made a joint award to the applicants of EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Özata v. Turkey (no. 19578/02)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Zahide Songül Özata, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara.   She was arrested in Antalya on 21 November 1995 by the police officers from the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the Antalya Security Directorate on suspicion of being a member of the PKK and kept in police custody until 29 November 1995. The charges against her were later dropped. On her release she went directly to a private hospital where she was found to be suffering from hyper-tension and neurotic anxiety.   In February 1996 she brought an action before Antalya Assize Court against the Treasury requesting compensation for her unlawful arrest and detention (which lasted eight days) and her hospital expenses. After consulting the written opinion of the public prosecutor, the court awarded her compensation for her hospital expenses and for non-pecuniary damages. The applicant and the treasury both appealed against the award.   There followed a series of proceedings before the Court of Cassation and Antalya Assize Court during the course of which the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted observations on the merits of the appeals. During the course of these proceedings the applicant’s request for a hearing was dismissed.   In May 2001 the applicant was awarded non-pecuniary damages with interest. She appealed without success. According to information submitted by the Government, the applicant never applied to obtain the compensation awarded to her by the court.   The applicant complained about the lack of an oral hearing, non-communication of observations from the public prosecutor and Chief Public Prosecutor, the length of the compensation proceedings (about five years and ten months) and the non-payment of the compensation awarded by the court. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 or Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that there had been no exceptional circumstances that could have justified dispensing with an oral hearing It considered that the administration of justice and the accountability of the State would have been better served if the applicant had been afforded the right to explain her personal situation in a hearing before the domestic court subject to public scrutiny. It held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1.   As regards the non-communication to the applicant of the public prosecutors’ observations before Antalya Assize Court and Court of Cassation, the Court found that, having regard to the nature of the principal public prosecutor’s submissions and to the fact that the applicant was not given an opportunity to make written observations in reply, there had been an infringement of the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings. It found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   As regards the conduct of the judicial authorities concerning the length of proceedings (five years and ten months), the Court found that although no hearing was held, the case file was examined regularly and that no inordinate delay in the proceedings occurred in connection with the taking of expert evidence. Consequently, the Court considered that the authorities displayed due diligence in handling the applicant’s case. The Court therefore found that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   As to the applicant’s complaint that the non-pecuniary damage that was awarded to her by the court was never paid, the Court found that she had not exhausted all domestic remedies and rejected her complaint as manifestly unfounded.   The Court held that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Yetkinsekerci v. the United Kingdom (no. 71841/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Cahit Yetkinsekerci, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey).   On 25 March 1998 he was convicted of knowingly being involved in the attempted import of a controlled drug (diamorphine) and sentenced to 14   years’ imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed on 6 March 2001.   The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings against him, the appeal stage of which lasted for just under three years. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   As it had done on previous occasions in similar cases, the Court found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive Cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bazhenov v. Russia (no. 37930/02) Parkhomov v. Russia (no. 19589/02) Shvedov v. Russia (no. 69306/01) The applicants are: Sergey Serafimovich Bazhenov, born in 1960 and living in Tambov; Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Parkhomov, born in 1959 and living in Sorgovyy; and, Aleksandr Alekseyevich Shvedov, born in 1949 and living in Rostov-on-Don (the heir of Aleksey Yefimovich Shvedov, who died in 2003). They are all Russian nationals living in Russia.   They complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in their favour, relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Concerning Article 6 § 1, the Court observed that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for many years, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all three cases.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, it awarded Mr Bazhenov and Mr Shvedov EUR 3,000, and EUR 5,000 to Mr Parkhomov . Mr   Shvedov was also awarded EUR 300 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Hatun and Others v. Turkey (no. 57343/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants Doğan Hatun, Nüseyin Güçlü, Haci Yanık and Mehmet Çelik are all Turkish nationals who were born in 1970, 1971, 1971 and 1954 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey). They were arrested during a police operation mounted against the PKK. On 22   July 1997 the İzmir State Security Court sentenced Mr Yanık to 18 years’ imprisonment, Mr   Hatun to 24 years, Mr Güçlü to a life imprisonment and Mr Çelik to 3 years.   The applicants complained that they had not had a fair trial owing to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court that had convicted them. They also complained of the length of the criminal proceedings, which had taken more than four years. The relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of Izmir State Security Court. With regard to the other complaints of procedural unfairness, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction. Accordingly, it was unnecessary to examine those complaints.   With regard to the length of the proceedings, the Court, referring to its case-law, found that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as the “reasonable-time” requirement had been complied with.   The Court considered that its judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It reiterated that where it had found that an applicant had been convicted by a court that was not independence and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be a retrial without delay by an independent and impartial court. It made a joint award in respect of costs and expenses in the sum of EUR 1,000 (The judgment is available only in French.)   Tanrıkolu and Others v. Turkey (no. 45907/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants are 17 Turkish nationals. They all live in Silopi, south-east Turkey.   Between November 1992 and February 1993 the applicants were taken into police custody in Silopi.   On 6 February 1996 Diyarbakır state security court found the applicants guilty of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment, ranging between two years and six months and three years and nine months.   On 9 June 1997 the Court of Cassation, upholding Diyarbakır state security court’s reasoning and assessment of evidence, dismissed the applicants’ request for appeal   The applicants complained that they did not have a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court which tried and convicted them. They further complained that they were deprived of their right to the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody. They relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial).   The Court found that the applicants’ concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the state security court could be regarded as objectively justified. It held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     It also noted that in no circumstances could a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established grant a fair trial to those within its jurisdiction; accordingly it found that it was not necessary to consider the applicants other complaints under Article 6 § 3 (c).   The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and awarded the applicants EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Uludağ v. Turkey (no. 38861/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Suzi Uludağ, is a Turkish national who lives in Ankara.   The Turkish courts awarded her damages following the cancellation of a contract for the sale of land.   She complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of a delay in the payment by the authorities of a judgment debt and of the low rate of default interest payable on debts owed by the State.   As in a number of previous cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 and that its judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded her EUR 2,105 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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. 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.