CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 novembre 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 } .sC4132FC2 { width:202.16pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s11C495E9 { width:62.83pt; display:inline-block } .s5B9F672B { width:120.81pt; display:inline-block } .s14BE0790 { width:143.5pt; display:inline-block } .sE593F5A6 { width:130.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7198226F { width:148.14pt; display:inline-block } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s3DBB6109 { width:158.14pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s24A9ACCC { width:107.44pt; display:inline-block } .s880F5553 { width:119.46pt; display:inline-block } .sA4AD9AE2 { width:52.81pt; display:inline-block } .s7A710C32 { width:128.8pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sAE4D161F { width:274.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAC3342B9 { width:281.57pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBCBDC5FA { width:64.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s61CB1B2B { width:294.91pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2E15A8F0 { width:65.58%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s1CA8404F { width:16.86%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCF18EA08 { width:17.54%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6288556E { width:65.58%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s14AE975B { width:16.86%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s73E0764F { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s1FAA22AB { width:17.54%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s15EF53DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s6511CEED { width:65.58%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s9EABF2BC { width:16.86%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9DEFB9D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:8.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s331CD164 { width:17.54%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7D16014 { width:19.47pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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   598 8.11.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Slovakia, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 30 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.     D.D. v. France (application no 3/02)   Struck out The applicant, D.D., is an Algerian national who was born in 1942 and lives in France.   In 1960 she married G., an Algerian national, in France. The couple had six children, all of whom have French nationality. In 1988 the applicant’s husband returned to Algeria but she refused to accompany him. He was ordered to pay her maintenance and a contribution to the upkeep of one of their children who was still a minor. In 1990 he petitioned for divorce alleging fault, but his petition was dismissed by the French courts. He remarried in Algeria.   Following proceedings in which the applicant was represented and her interests were protected, the Algerian courts granted G. a divorce from the applicant at his “sole discretion” as the “person vested with the marital power”. At G.’s request, the French courts made an order declaring that judgment enforceable. In their view, although the applicant had been divorced by her husband under the repudiation procedure, the consequences were limited as she had been guaranteed financial advantages and had been able to submit her claims during the proceedings.   An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed on 3 July 2001.   Relying on Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (equality between spouses), the applicant complained that the French courts had declared enforceable a judgment by an Algerian court dissolving her marriage on the basis of a unilateral decision by her husband.   The Court noted that there had been a change in the Court of Cassation’s case-law on the effects of repudiation in France. The present position in French law was set out in the Court of Cassation judgments of 17 February 2004: “Even if it follows proper adversarial process, a decision which recognises unilateral repudiation by the husband without giving legal effect to any challenge by the wife will be contrary to the principle of equality between spouses on the dissolution of marriage, as recognised by Article 5 of Protocol No 7 to the Convention, which France has undertaken to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction. Such a decision, therefore, also contravenes international ordre public .   In July 2005 the Court was informed by the applicant's representative that she wished to withdraw her application. Having noted that there were no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention that required it to continue to examine the application (Article 37 § 1 of the Convention), the Court decided unanimously to strike it out of its list of cases. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Saliba v. Malta (no. 4251/02)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Benny Saliba, is a Maltese national who was born in 1941 and lives in Gozo (Malta).   In the early 1980s the applicant acquired ownership of a plot of land in Gozo, on which a storage facility had been built. Later, on two separate occasions, he was charged by the police with having carried out construction work on his land without having obtained the necessary permits. He was acquitted in the first set of proceedings but was found guilty in the second set. He was ordered to pay a fine and demolish the storage facility.   He appealed.   In October 1992 the Court of Criminal Appeal revoked that judgment but nevertheless ordered that the building be demolished since it had been built without the required permit. The Court based its decision on Article 17(9) of Chapter 10 of the Laws of Malta (Code of Police Laws).   The applicant took the case to the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction where he argued that that law had been amended on 6 June 1988 and that, prior to that date, a demolition order could not be imposed on an acquitted person. He further maintained that since the criminal offence had allegedly been committed before that date, the punishment imposed on him was not foreseeable.   The Civil Court rejected the applicant’s claim and he appealed to the Constitutional Court which also found against the applicant. The court held that a criminal act had been committed and that, independently of who had breached the law, there was a need to re-establish the rule of law. The only way to do that was to order the demolition of the unlawfully constructed building.   The applicant complained about the order to demolish his storage building. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found that the domestic courts had not acted in an arbitrary manner in applying Article 17(9) of the Code of Police Laws. Furthermore, it held that, after the amendments had been introduced, the applicant could have foreseen that, if his storage facility were to be found unlawfully erected, its demolition could have been ordered independently from a finding of his criminal guilt.   The Court noted that the effect of ordering the demolition of a totally unlawful construction was to put things back in the position they would have been in, had the requirements of the law not been disregarded and was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The fact that the applicant had been acquitted at the outset of the criminal proceedings could not change that conclusion. To hold otherwise would be tantamount to obliging the domestic authorities to tolerate unlawful constructions each time their ownership was transferred to a third bona fide party.   The Court therefore concluded that the measure complained of had been within the law and had not been disproportionate to the aim pursued. It therefore held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kaniewski v. Poland (no. 38049/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Andreas Kaniewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Köln (Germany).   In October 1993 the applicant lodged an application with Warsaw Śródmieście Municipality asking for the right to temporary ownership of a plot of land and a house. In August 1995 his case was referred to Warsaw Municipality.   In November 1995 the applicant made the first of many complaints to the Self-Government Board of Appeal about the lack of activity on the part of the Mayor of Warsaw   in handling his case. The proceedings are still pending.   The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (length of civil proceedings) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted over 12 years. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, after declaring the application admissible, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   In view of that finding the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 8000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Wojda v. Poland (no. 55233/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Bogdan Wojda, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Płock (Poland).   Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him. The first concerned the theft of livestock and ended in April 1999 with his conviction and sentence to one year’s imprisonment. The second related to an assault and the theft of a van for which the applicant was given a seven-and-a-half year sentence in February 2001.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the length of the two sets of proceedings.   The Court noted that the first set of proceedings had taken almost three years, seven and a half months and the second approximately five years and three months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1 respect of the first set of proceedings, but a violation of that provision in respect of the second. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Zielonka v. Poland (no. 49913/99)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 The applicant, Sławomir Zielonka, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Łódź (Poland).   In November 1997 he was arrested on suspicion of receiving and selling stolen goods and was detained on remand until 21 February 1998. On 24 February 1998, the Łódź District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. The applicant appealed, claiming he had been unlawfully detained between 21 and 24   February 1998. His appeal was dismissed.   Łódź District Court subsequently admitted its mistake and confirmed that there had been no valid judicial decision authorising the applicant’s detention on remand between 21 and 24 February 1998.   The applicant complained about the unlawfulness of his detention on remand. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that it was undisputed that the applicant’s detention from 21 to 24 February 1998 lacked any legal basis. According to Łódź District Court, there had been no valid judicial decision authorising the applicant’s detention on remand for those three days.   The Court held by 6 votes to 1 that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   H.F. v. Slovakia (no. 54797/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, H.F., is a Slovakian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bratislava.   In February 1996 the psychology department of the Bratislava University Hospital and the applicant’s former husband applied to the Bratislava District Court for a declaration that the applicant had no legal capacity. On 13 November 1997 the district court granted their application on the ground that the applicant was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and was incapable of entering into legal transactions or managing her affairs. The district court did not hear evidence from the applicant, but relied in its decision on a report drawn up in July 1996 by a psychiatrist who worked for the university hospital psychology department and on statements by the applicant’s former husband and witnesses he had called.   The applicant appealed. Without hearing evidence from her or ordering further psychiatric reports as her lawyer had requested, the regional court upheld the district court’s judgment on 25 September 1998.   The applicant recovered her legal capacity in July 2001.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of the unfairness of the procedure by which she had been deprived of her legal capacity. She alleged that the courts had not properly established the facts or given sufficient reasons for their decisions. She also complained of failings on the part of the guardian appointed by the court to represent her. She also alleged a violation of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court noted that the Code of Civil Procedure required the courts to appoint a guardian to act on behalf of those whose legal capacity was at issue, even if the person was assisted by a lawyer. In the case before it, it appeared that the applicant had not been represented by a guardian in the district court and had only been represented in a formal way on appeal. The Court referred on this subject to Committee of Ministers Recommendation no. Rec(99)4 on principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults, and accepted the applicant’s submission that the purpose of the appointment of a guardian had not been fulfilled in her case.   The Court further considered that the psychiatric report could not be regarded as “up-to-date”, within the meaning of the recommendation, which also spoke of “at least” one qualified expert. It was not only in the interests of the applicant, whose mental condition was liable to evolve with treatment, but also in the interests of the truth, which the district court had an obligation to establish, for a second psychiatric expert to be instructed to report. A further report would also have enabled the district court to establish more effectively whether the psychiatrist’s recommendation in 1996 that it should not hear evidence from the applicant remained valid at the date of its decision.   The Court considered that the proceedings, the outcome of which was extremely important to the applicant, should have been surrounded by appropriate procedural safeguards that would have enabled her rights to be protected and her interests to be taken into account. The Slovakian courts had not acted with the necessary diligence or assembled sufficient evidence to make an assessment of the applicant’s faculties and to avoid any miscarriage of justice. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In the light of that conclusion, it held that it was unnecessary to examine the case under Article 8 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000   for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4   No violation of Article 3 Dağ and Yaşar v. Turkey (no. 4080/02) Karagöz v. Turkey (no. 78027/01) The applicants, Remziye Dağ, Mustafa Yaşar and Emrullah Karagöz, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1940, 1972 and 1978 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   They were arrested on suspicion of belonging to or aiding and abetting the PKK and taken into police custody. The dates of the arrests were 11 November 2001 for Ms Dağ, 28 October 2001 for Mr Karagöz and 29 October 2001 for Mr Yaşar.   On 15 November 2001 Ms Dağ was brought before a judge who ordered her detention pending trial. She was transferred to Diyarbakır Prison. Like orders had already been made on 1 November 2001 in the cases of Mr   Yaşar and Mr Karagöz and they too had been transferred to Diyarbakır Prison. A few hours after the arrival at the prison of each of the applicants, a judge made an order under Legislative Decree no. 430 on ‘Additional Measures to be taken in view of the State of Emergency’ for the applicants to be taken to the gendarmerie for additional questioning. The applicants did not return to the prison until a number of days later: Ms Dağ on 29 November , Mr Yaşar on 22 November and Mr Karagöz on 12 December.   On each occasion they left or entered the prison, the applicants were examined by doctors, who drew up reports, but did not note any injuries on the applicants.   The applicants complained that they had been subjected to torture at the gendarmerie station and lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor. Ms Dağ alleged that she had been beaten, threatened, insulted and deprived of food. Mr Yaşar alleged that he had been beaten, subjected to Palestinian hanging and electric shocks and sprayed with cold water. Mr   Karagöz complained among other things that he had been beaten and sprayed with cold water and that his testicles had been crushed. Ms Dağ’s complaint resulted in a finding of no case to answer. No action was taken on Mr Yaşar’s or Mr Karagöz’s complaints, for lack of evidence.   The applicants alleged that they had been detained in violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security). In addition, they complained under Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) about the treatment inflicted on them during the period they had spent in the custody of the gendarmes.   The Court noted that Ms Dağ had remained in the custody of the gendarmes for 18 days and Mr Yaşar and Mr Karagöz for more than 40 days. Their transfer to the gendarmerie headquarters, when in pre-trial detention, had denied them proper judicial supervision. Furthermore, putting remand prisoners into the custody of gendarmes for questioning was a means of subverting the legislation regulating the length of time spent in police custody. That was the position in which the applicants had found themselves when they were subjected to further questioning a few hours after being remanded in custody. Moreover, the duration of their stay at the gendarmerie headquarters had been extended for no apparent reason. That in itself had to be regarded as a breach of the requirement of lawfulness under Article 5 § 1, a breach that took away all the safeguards, especially access to legal advice, to which persons were entitled when they were questioned. The Court therefore held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 1. Having regard to that conclusion, it did not consider it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 3 separately.   The Court further considered the Article 8 of Legislative Decree no. 430 made any effective judicial supervision of decisions taken under its provisions impossible. It therefore held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   4.   With regard to the allegations of ill-treatment, the Court noted that the medical reports made no mention of signs of ill-treatment and that the applicants had not shown the doctors who examined them any marks on their bodies. Consequently, the Court found that the allegations of ill-treatment had not been established “beyond all reasonable doubt” and held unanimously in both cases that there had been no violation of Article 3.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded Ms Dağ EUR 4,000   and Mr Yaşar EUR   8,000   for non-pecuniary damage. It made them a joint award of EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. The Court also awarded Mr Karagöz EUR 8,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000   for costs and expenses, less EUR 685   already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Daş v. Turkey (no. 74411/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Ali Daş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953. He was serving a sentence in Nazilli Prison (Turkey) at the time of lodging his application.   On 23 May 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody at Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of his involvement with the PKK. He was later transferred to Diyarbakır State Security Directorate in İzmir where he was asked to identify other suspects that he had mentioned in his statements from photographs.   On 28 May 2001 İzmir State Security Court remanded him in custody since it considered that there was a risk of him escaping. He was subsequently convicted of being a member of a terrorist organisation and sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention in police custody. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge).   The applicant was detained before being brought before a judge for approximately four days and twenty hours. The Court found that the fact that the police took the applicant’s statement and transferred him to İzmir to identify suspects did not justify the delay in his being brought before a judge.   By unanimous vote, the Court declared the application admissible and held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. It awarded the applicant EUR   500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Haydar Kaya v. Turkey (no. 48387/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Haydar Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1942. At the relevant time he was chair of the Ankara regional branch of the Employment Party ( Emeğin Partisi ).   In July 1997 he made a statement addressed to the press and public opinion in which, using words with Marxist connotations, he condemned State policy and attacked certain political and military figures whom he described as “putschists” and “gangs”. He offered an explanation for the rise in violence of the preceding years in southeast Turkey and criticised the leaders’ economic and social programmes. His main arguments appeared to be that “workers, proletariats, progressives and democrats” should take united action for freedom and democracy.   Criminal charges were brought against him for inciting the people to hatred and hostility and for creating discrimination founded on social class and race. He was convicted by Ankara State Security Court in November 1997 and given a two year suspended prison sentence and a fine. In addition, he was excluded from the party by its executive committee at the public prosecutor’s request.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained that his criminal conviction infringed his right to freedom of expression. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complained about the unfairness of the proceedings that had resulted in his conviction. Finally, he alleged that his exclusion from the party following his conviction constituted a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   The Court found that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not be considered sufficient in themselves to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The applicant had issued his statement in his capacity as chair of the Ankara regional branch of the Employment Party and as a player on the Turkish political scene,   and it had taken the form of a political speech, both in its content and in the kind of terms employed. It was more a reflection of intransigence on the part of one of the parties to the conflict than an incitement to violence. The Court also noted the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant, whose conviction had also resulted in his being excluded from the party.   In those circumstances, the Court found that the applicant’s conviction and sentence were disproportionate to the aims pursued and, therefore, not “necessary in a democratic society”. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.   As in a number of previous cases, the Court 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. With regard to the other complaint of procedural unfairness, it 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. It consequently held that it was unnecessary to examine that complaint.   Lastly, the Court noted that the applicant’s exclusion from the party was, by virtue of Article   312 of the Criminal Code, a direct and automatic consequence of his conviction. In view of its finding that there had been a violation of Article 10, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine this complaint separately.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,048   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gorshkov v. Ukraine (no. 67531/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Viktor Petrovich Gorshkov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in Orenburg (Russia) in 1954 and currently lives in Simferopol (the Crimea).   On 9 April 1991, after the court’s finding that the applicant attempted to commit rape, the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Simferopol placed an order on him to undergo compulsory medical treatment under close supervision in a psychiatric hospital.   In January 1999, on the request of the Crimean Republican Psychiatric Hospital (CRPH), the same court decided that the applicant should be placed under ordinary supervision in the psychiatric hospital since his behaviour had improved.   The Chief Psychiatrist of the Ministry of Health of the Crimea and the psychiatrist of the CRPH lodged a number of unsuccessful applications to terminate the applicant’s compulsory medical treatment and to transfer him to a regime of ordinary supervision outside of the psychiatric hospital since medical reports had shown that his health had improved.   In September 2001 the court allowed an application lodged by the Head of the Medical Department of CRPH and decided that treatment could be given to the applicant under ordinary supervision, since his state of health had improved.   The applicant was released from the psychiatric hospital on 8 November 2001.   The applicant complained that he had no effective remedies against his compulsory confinement in a psychiatric hospital. In particular, he alleged that he was released almost two years after his health had improved. He relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   The Court noted that access to a judge should not depend on the good will of the detaining authority, activated at the discretion of the medical corps or the hospital administration. Ukrainian law as it stood, ensuring that a mental health patient was brought before a judge automatically was insufficient on its own and did not eliminate the need for an independent right of individual application by the patient.   The Court concluded that the applicant had not been entitled to take proceedings to test the lawfulness of his continued detention for compulsory medical treatment by a court, as required by the Convention. It held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kechko v. Ukraine (no. 63134/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Aleksandr Kechko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Donetsk (Ukraine).   In April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before Leninsky District Court of Donetsk against the Department of Education, claiming entitlement to benefits accruing to him as a result of an amendment to the Education Act on 23 March 1996. The applicant held that he fulfilled the only condition stipulated in the Act, having worked over 10 years in the service and was therefore entitled to a 20% increase in his salary as from 1 January 1997.   The court rejected his claim for unpaid benefits in 1997 and 1998 and his claim for benefits after 1 June 1999. It did, however, award the salary increase for the period beginning 1   January and ending 1   June 1999. That judgment was quashed on appeal, the court noting that the Secondary Education Act had entered into force on 23 June 1999 and that the first instance court had erroneously overlooked the period between 1 and 23 June 1999.   In its second examination of the case the Leninsky District Court of Donetsk ruled against the applicant. It found that, under the transitional clauses of the Secondary Education Act, the provision entitling the applicant to benefits would only resume force on 1 September 2001. Thus, at the time of the examination, there had been no legal basis for the claim.   The applicant complained about the refusal to pay him the benefits to which he was entitled by law, for the period 1997-1999. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court observed that the applicant’s claim before the domestic authorities regarding the period of 1 January to 23 June 1999 was based on domestic law in force at the time. Having fulfilled the requisite criterion for entitlement to the salary increase he had a reasonable expectation, if not a right, to receive the payment in question.   The Court could not understand why the domestic courts had applied the Secondary Education Act to the applicant’s claim since the Act did not contain any retroactive provisions. Accordingly, it found that the denial by the domestic authorities of the applicant’s entitlement to this benefit was arbitrary and not based on the law. The Court therefore held, unanimously that had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards this period.   As to the periods prior to 1 January 1999 and after 23 June 1999, the Court did not discern any arbitrariness in the domestic courts’ decisions and found, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that respect.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and pecuniary damage and EUR   200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Strizhak v. Ukraine (no. 72269/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Aleksandr Georgiyevich Strizhak, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Dnipropetrovs’k (Ukraine).   On 5 September 1938, after being implicated in a robbery, the applicant’s father was deemed a “socially harmful element” and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment in a correctional labour camp by the Troika tribunal of the Department of the NKVD [2] of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in the Dnipropetrovs’k Region ( Трійка Управління Народного Комісаріату Внутрішніх Справ УPСР по Дніпропетровській області ).   In March 1980 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court quashed that resolution and terminated the proceedings and a written notice was sent to the applicant to that effect.   The applicant sought to have the notice amended to include correct details about the quashing of his father’s erroneous conviction as he maintained that his father’s memory had been defamed. He also sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the Deputy President of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court.   The President of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court consistently refused to annul the written notice or to reword it. The applicant lodged complaints with the Zhovtnevy District Court of Dnipropetrovs’k to have his refusals declared unlawful, and to rebut the information contained in the notice. He also sought compensation for moral damage. The district court, however, in its judgment of 2 June 2000, refused to examine the applicant’s claims on the ground that they fell outside the court’s jurisdiction, as they concerned the actions of a judge in the course of the administration of justice.   On 27 July 2000 the district court extended the applicant’s term for lodging an appeal in cassation with the regional court. On the same day, according to the Government, the district court notified the applicant that his case would be heard on 14 August 2000 in the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court. The applicant alleged that he did not receive this notification. On 14 August 2000 the regional court, in the absence of the applicant, upheld the decision of 2 June 2000.   The applicant complained, that he was not informed about the hearing on 14 August 2000 and that there was no public hearing on that occasion. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court considered it unlikely that on 27 July 2000 the applicant received notification of the date and time of the hearing, as it was only on that date that the Zhovtnevy District Court of Dnipropetrovs’k gave leave for his cassation appeal (this ruling becoming final ten days later). Furthermore, the case was heard on 14 August 2000 by the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court on the assumption that the notification of 27 July 2000 had been duly communicated to the applicant. The Government had not provided the Court with any evidence that the notification was ever sent out nor that it had been received by the applicant.   The Court concluded that the notification arrangements had not been sufficiently ensured and therefore the applicant had been deprived of an opportunity to present his arguments in the course of a public hearing. In the Court’s view, that hearing was important given the fact that the defendant to the case was the Deputy President of that court.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the failure of the domestic authorities to inform the applicant about the date and time of the hearing and awarded the applicant EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   200 for costs and expenses. (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:     Violations of Article 6 § 1 Authouart v. France (no. 45338/99) Bozon v. France (no. 71244/01) De Sousa v. France (no. 61328/00) Géniteau v. France (no. 4069/02) In these four cases, the applicants, all French nationals, are Auguste Authouart, who was born in 1942 and lives in Saudi Arabia; André Bozon, who was born in 1928 and lives in La Baule, and Patrick Bozon, who was born in 1954 and lives in Andilly; Mauricio de Sousa, who was born in 1975 and lives in Tourcoing; and Alain Géniteau, who was born in 1949 and lives in Brest.   The cases concern the procedure in the Court of Cassation. Mr   Authouart, Mr André Bozon,   Mr Patrick Bozon and Mr de Sousa had appealed against criminal convictions and Mr   Géniteau against a judgment in a commercial dispute.   The applicants complained under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of procedural unfairness. They all alleged that the judge rapporteur’s report had been communicated to the advocate-general, but not to them. They further complained of a failure to communicate the advocate-general’s submissions ( Bozon , de Sousa and Géniteau ), of the advocate-general’s attendance at the court’s deliberations ( Bozon ), of the length of the criminal proceedings ( Authouart ) and of unfairness in criminal proceedings ( Bozon and de Sousa ).   The Court declared the complaints under Article   6 partly admissible and the remaining complaints inadmissible.   Referring to its case-law, the Court reiterated that a failure to communicate the judge rapporteur’s report to the appellant or his or her counsel prior to the hearing when it had been made available to the advocate-general created an imbalance that was incompatible with the requirements of a fair hearing. It therefore held unanimously in all four cases that there had been a violation of Article 6   § 1 on that account. It also found a violation of Article 6 §   1 on account of the advocate-general’s presence at the deliberations ( Bozon ) and of the failure to communicate the tenor of the advocate-general’s submissions ( de Sousa ). In the case of Authouart is held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   § 1 owing to the excessive length of the criminal proceedings (9 years and 13 days).   As regards just satisfaction, the Court awarded Mr Authouart   EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage. it considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient reparation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the other applicants. It made the following awards for costs and expenses: EUR 2,357.42   to Mr Authouart , EUR 3,000   to Mr André Bozon and Mr   Patrick   Bozon , EUR 1,000   to Mr de Sousa   and EUR 300   to Mr Géniteau. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Asito v. Moldova (no.40663/98)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant is the Moldovan incorporated insurance company Asito, which is based in Chişinǎu.   In October 1992, the applicant company’s licence to engage in banking activities alongside its insurance activities was withdrawn. In November 1994 it concluded a contract with another company as a “joint commercial transaction”.   On 23 September 1997 the Appeal on Points of Law Chamber of the Economic Court allowed a request by the Prosecutor General lodged under Article 38 § 3 of the Law on Economic Courts, and quashed a final judgment in the applicant company’s favour for the execution of the contract. The court found that that the contract did not comply with the Law on Banks and Banking activities.   In a separate set of proceedings, the Prosecutor General sought to have the contract annulled. On 24 December 1997 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed a final judgment in the applicant’s favour and found that the contract was a disguised credit operation.   Subsequently, the Economic Court of the Republic Moldova ordered ASITO to pay the State MDL 186,945.00 (the equivalent of EUR 18,765.00 at the time) as a penalty equal to the profit obtained whilst carrying out an illegal activity. The judgment became final on 25   October 2000   The company complained that the Prosecutor General had intervened in a dispute between two private parties and that two final judgments in its favour were subsequently quashed. The annulment of those judgments and the subsequent confiscation of MDL 186,945 amounted to a deprivation of its possessions, unjustified by any public interest ground and without fair compensation. The applicant company relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that final and binding judgments in the applicant’s favour were set aside by a higher court, following an application by a public prosecutor, whose power to make such applications was not subject to any time-limit, so that judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely. The Court held that by applying the provisions of Article 38 § 3, the Appeal on Points of Law Chamber of the Economic Court and the Supreme Court of Justice infringed the principle of legal certainty and action breached the applicant company’s right to a fair hearing. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1.   The Court recalled that the sum awarded to the applicant company by the first quashed judgment could be considered a possession. As to the second quashed judgment, the Court noted that the applicant company had a legitimate expectation of receiving a profit from the contract concluded with company in question and that this contractual right to the profit was a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol 1. Quashing those judgments after they had become final therefore constituted an interference with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions,   there being no public interest defence justifying that interference.   The Court also concluded that in view of the above findings, the judgment of 25 October 2000, by which the applicant company’s profit was confiscated, also had the effect of infringing its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   The Court awarded the applicant company EUR   237 in respect of costs and expenses and held that the remaining questions concerning the application of Article   41 of the Convention were not ready for decision and consequently, invited the Moldovan Government and the applicant to submit their written observations.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 14 Şeyhmus Yaşar and Others v. Turkey (no. 44763/98) Sınırlı Sorumlu Özulaş Yapı Kooperatifi v. Turkey (no. 42913/98) The applicants are 17 Turkish nationals and a Turkish co-operative, Sınırlı Sorumlu Özulaş Yapı Kooperatifi .   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained, among other things, of delays by the State in paying additional compensation for expropriation. The co-operative also complained under Article 14 of the Convention of discrimination.   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the case of Sınırlı Sorumlu Özulaş Yapı Kooperatifi it further held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 14.   On the issue of just satisfaction, the Court found that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient reparation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and made the following overall awards for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.     Pecuniary damage (€) Costs and expenses (€) Şeyhmus Yaşar and Others v. Turkey 2,032 1,000 Sınırlı Sorumlu Özulaş Yapı Kooperatifi v. Turkey 20,203 1,000   (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Timotiyevich v. Ukraine (no. 63158/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Dmitriy Dmitriyevich Timotiyevich, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Krasnoyarskoye (Ukraine).   On 30 May 1994 Dobropolye City Court declared the Belitskaya Mining Company in Dobropolye and the Dobropolskiy communal farm liable for damage caused to the applicant’s house by underground mining machines. The court ordered the defendants to build the applicant a new house and pay him compensation. In June 1998 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment, which had become final, in supervisory review proceedings requested by the Prosecutor General.   The applicant complained that the proceedings in his case were unfair insofar as the final judgment given in his favour was quashed.   He also complained about the infringement of his property rights caused by the quashing of the judgment awarding him compensation.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing and Article 1 § Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that a final and binding judgment in the applicant’s favour was set aside by a higher court in supervisory review proceedings, following an application by a public prosecutor, whose power to make such applications was not subject to any time-limit, so that judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely.   As a result, the applicant had had to endure legal uncertainty for a long period after the final judgment was quashed. There had therefore been a breach of the principle of leg