CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 janvier 2006

.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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4CACF729 { width:34.81pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s55C281ED { width:276.25pt; display:inline-block } .s6066DECA { width:252.25pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .s11D35F46 { width:157.48pt; display:inline-block } .sB8EFBE4C { width:281.57pt; display:inline-block } .s5FBAEE1D { width:44.78pt; display:inline-block } .sDA5491FA { width:8.1pt; display:inline-block } .sE3829386 { width:218.25pt; display:inline-block } .sF913710D { width:162.15pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s444F1E17 { width:57.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF3C92F4A { width:93.45pt; display:inline-block } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sD43B7066 { width:140.83pt; display:inline-block } .sC423C03B { width:113.45pt; display:inline-block } .sB706842E { width:141.46pt; display:inline-block } .s816CE719 { width:7.47pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7B3E8537 { width:53.32%; 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 } .s561D7F50 { width:26.08%; 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 } .s82226DC3 { width:20.62%; 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 } .sA01E6419 { width:53.32%; 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 } .sA7A8EA1D { width:26.08%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5062CC34 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:17.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sB5EDBBF1 { width:20.62%; 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 } .sEAC79953 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:19pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sECA9F8BB { width:53.32%; 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 } .s8CD499E9 { width:26.08%; 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 } .s7F3427B5 { width:20.62%; 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 } .s55CF1C79 { width:19.44pt; display:inline-block } .s17C0F6D0 { width:80.8pt; display:inline-block } .sB2476B4D { width:76.79pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sFDD07C1D { width:114.13pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s5B9F672B { width:120.81pt; display:inline-block } .s52D43A87 { width:69.49pt; display:inline-block } .sB3D883E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21pt } .sDAA6A089 { width:17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; 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   7 10.1.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Poland, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and a length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.   Gruais and Bousquet v. France (application no 67881/01) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Marcel Gruais and François Bousquet, are French nationals. Mr Gruais was born in 1940 and lives in Les Ulis (France) and Mr Bousquet was born in 1948 and lives in Paris.   In November 1995 the applicants were placed under judicial investigation on counts of acquiring or retaining a prohibited interest, forgery, handling stolen goods and complicity in those offences, fraud and misuse of company property. Mr Bousquet lodged an application for the proceedings to be declared null and void, but it was dismissed in a judgment of 16 September 1999, which was served on the two applicants by registered letter without acknowledgment of receipt. According to the endorsement on the judgment it had been served on Friday 17 September 1999. However, according to the postmark on the envelope containing the notice addressed to Mr Gruais, it had not been posted until Monday 20 September 1999. This was confirmed by Mr Bousquet, who had not kept evidence of the recorded delivery.   On 24 September 1999 the applicants lodged appeals on points of law. The Court of Cassation, on the basis of the date endorsed on the judgment, namely 17 September 1999, considered that the applicants had lodged their appeals outside the statutory time-limit of five days and declared them inadmissible as being out of time.   The applicants contended that the dismissal of their appeals to the Court of Cassation had breached their right to a fair trial. They relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the Court of Cassation had based its decision on the date of service as endorsed on the judgment and not the date on which the notice had actually been posted, as recorded by the postmark. The date endorsed on the judgment by the registry had not corresponded to the actual date of dispatch and this had had the effect of reducing the period of time that the applicants should have been given to lodge their appeal. Since it was a particularly short period (five clear days, or six days at most), its reduction by one half in the present case had resulted in a particularly restrictive limitation of the actual time-limit for appeal. The Court moreover noted that the French Government had not disputed the fact that there had been an interference with the applicants’ right of access to the Court of Cassation and had left the matter to the Court’s discretion.   In the circumstances of the case, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In view of that finding, it considered that it was unnecessary to examine the case under Article 6 § 3 (b) and Article 13. By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,457.22 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Harazin v. Poland (no. 38227/02) Świerzko v. Poland (no. 9013/02) W.B. v. Poland (no. 34090/96) The applicants are all Polish nationals. They were arrested and detained on remand: Mr   Harazin on suspicion of having committed burglary; Mr Świerzko on suspicion, among other things, of rape, and W.B. on suspicion of assault and inflicting torture.   The applicants all relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, complaining either about the length of their pre-trial detention or that they were not brought promptly before a judge.   In Harazin and Świerzko the Court concluded that the reasons relied on by the courts in their decisions were not sufficient to justify the applicants being held in detention for the periods in question, over two years and eight months and three years, two months and 16 days respectively.   In Harazin the Court further noted that the delay of nearly two years in opening the applicant’s trial should be considered significant and that it could not therefore be said that the authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.     In W.B. , the Court recalled that, under Polish legislation in force at the relevant time, a prosecutor could not be regarded as a “judicial officer” endowed with attributes of “independence” and “impartiality” required under Article 5 § 3, because the prosecution authorities not only belonged to the executive branch of the State but also concurrently performed investigative and prosecution functions in criminal proceedings and were a party to such proceedings. Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicant’s right to be brought “before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” was not respected.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in all three cases. In W.B. the Court further held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded EUR 1,231 to W.B. for costs and expenses. The Court awarded Mr Harazin EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. It held by six votes to one that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Świerzko. (The Świerzko judgment is available in French and the other two in English.)   Teltronic-CATV v. Poland (no. 48140/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Teltronic-CATV, was a small limited liability company, registered in Poland.   In 1993-1995, under contract, Teltronic-CATV constructed a cable TV network for the Best-Sat company, which subsequently refused to pay Teltronic-CATV’s invoice for 246,969.86 Polish zlotys (approximately 76,000 euros). The applicant company was apparently required, nevertheless, to pay in November 1995 a substantial VAT bill of PLN 44,486.32 (approximately EUR 13,700) on that amount, as well as income tax.   On 15 April 1997 the applicant company filed a claim concerning the unpaid invoice. However, it was required to pay a court fee of PLN 13,948.49. The company applied to be exempted from the fee, claiming that it was considerably beyond its means; for the first 10 months of 1997, it had made net profits of only PLN 7,695.37, while the company’s assets amounted to PLN 31,366.98, but consisted mostly of unpaid claims.   The Polish courts refused the exemption request, basing their decisions on the company’s gross profits and the value of its fixed and current assets. The courts considered that the applicant company could have secured the funds necessary for litigation before its financial situation had deteriorated and that the company could have obtained a bank loan or required the company’s partners to make appropriate surcharges.   As the company did not pay the fee, its claim was returned to it and had no legal effect.   The applicant company complained that the excessive court fees required for lodging its claim resulted in the claim not being examined by a court, in violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court).   The European Court of Human Rights did not find the arguments put forward by the domestic courts for refusing the company an exemption from paying court fees to be persuasive, in particular when weighed against the importance of securing to the applicant company “effective” access to a court. The judicial authorities disregarded the reasonable objection of the applicant company that the disposal of those assets would lead to the company’s winding-up.   In addition, the possibility of securing in advance the funds for court fees appeared to be rather hypothetical, given the fact that the bulk of the applicant company’s activities was related to the unpaid work done for the Best-Sat company over a substantial period of time.   It also appeared questionable how the applicant company, which had been on the verge of insolvency, could obtain such a loan. Neither was the Court persuaded that the applicant company’s partners were in a position to provide the company with any additional funds, given the value of the initial share capital of the applicant company and its subsequent financial situation.   The Court also noted that the judicial authorities did not refuse the exemption from the court fee at issue on the basis that it was manifestly ill-founded. Neither did they claim that the court fee served the interests of protecting the other party against irrecoverable legal costs.   Furthermore, the Court considered that restrictions on access to a court which were of a purely financial nature and which, as in the applicant company’s case, were completely unrelated to the merits of the claim or its prospects of success, should be subject to a particularly rigorous scrutiny from the point of view of the interests of justice. It was also of significance for the Court that the refusal to grant exemption took place at the preliminary stage of the proceedings before the first-instance court and resulted in the applicant company’s claims never being examined on the merits.   The Court observed that under Polish law an exemption from payment of court fees could at any time be revoked by the courts if the basis for it had ceased to exist. Consequently, allowing the applicant company to proceed with its claim at the initial phase of the proceedings would not have prevented the Polish courts from collecting court fees if at some further stage its financial situation had improved.   The Court considered that the judicial authorities failed to secure a proper balance between, on the one hand, the interest of the State in collecting court fees for dealing with claims and, on the other hand, the interest of the applicant company to pursue its claims through the courts. The Court therefore concluded that the imposition of the court fees on the applicant company constituted a disproportionate restriction on its right of access to a court.   It held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant company EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 2 (death)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   No violation of Article 3   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Bişkin v. Turkey (no. 45403/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicants, Leyla Bişkin and her son İbrahim Bişkin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1943 and 1969 respectively and live in Şırnak (Turkey).   They alleged that Mehmet Bişkin, the first applicant’s son, who was also the second applicant’s brother, had been abducted from his home by plain-clothes police officers on the night of 4 January 1996. The officers had allegedly asked him to come with them to the police station in connection with a statement he had given. Later that night, the second applicant, who had called the police, was informed that his brother had not been taken into police custody but that his body had been found in the street with a bullet in the head, behind his right ear.   The resulting investigation included an expert ballistics survey of the scene of the incident and an autopsy on the body of Mehmet Bişkin, which revealed that the victim had died from gunshot wounds resulting in damage to brain tissue and subsequent haemorrhaging. The public prosecutor requested the security police, among other authorities, to conduct an investigation to identify the perpetrators of the homicide and to find out whether the PKK had been involved. In February 1998 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint concerning the death.   The investigation into the killing of Mehmet Bişkin, to date, has not revealed the identity of the perpetrators.   The applicants contended that Mehmet Bişkin was the victim of an extrajudicial execution. They relied on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   In the light of the evidence before it, the Court considered that a finding to the effect that Mehmet Bişkin had been killed by agents of the State or with their connivance would be based more on speculation and assumption than on reliable inference. In those circumstances, it observed that Turkey’s responsibility for the homicide had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt. It accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 on that account.   As regards the investigation into the death, the Court noted that the steps taken had shed no light on the substance of the case. In June and July 2001, five years after the incident in question and several months after the communication of the application to the Turkish Government, the public prosecutor had heard testimony from some of the eye witnesses in the case. The Court found it surprising that the first applicant, who had allegedly witnessed her son’s abduction, had not been questioned until June 2001. Moreover, an external autopsy examination of the body had been carried out by a single pathologist, in breach of the statutory provisions in force at the material time. In addition, the investigation had only been directed against the PKK and no other leads had been followed up. The Court was also surprised to note that, in spite of a request by the public prosecutor to the security police to trace the victim’s car, the police had reported to him that no such enquiries had been made. In those circumstances, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 as regards the investigation into the case.   As Turkey’s responsibility for the killing of Mehmet Bişkin had not been established beyond all reasonable doubt, the Court considered that the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 5 were devoid of any factual basis. It accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of those articles.   Lastly, the Court reiterated that Turkey could not be regarded in the applicant’s case as having carried out an effective criminal investigation, as required by Article 13. It accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of that Article.   As the applicants had not submitted any claims for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court considered that no award should be made. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) Bora and Others v. Turkey (no. 39081/97)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicants, Hüseyin Bora, Mehmet Can Tekin, Nurhan Ekdi and Şeh Mehmet Başkurt, are Turkish nationals. With the exception of Mr Başkurt, who was born in 1959, they were born in 1962. They live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). At the material time they were members and administrators of the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP).   They were arrested on 31 August 1997 on suspicion of being members of the PKK, an illegal organisation. They were taken into police custody and remained there until their release on 9 September 1997. The proceedings brought against them for allegedly belonging to an illegal organisation were concluded by their acquittal in November 2000.   The applicants complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention that they were unlawfully taken into police custody, held for an excessive length of time and deprived of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.   The Court considered that the applicants could be regarded as having been arrested and detained on “reasonable suspicion” of having committed a criminal offence. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (c).   The Court further noted that the applicants had spent ten days in police custody. It could not accept that it had been necessary to hold them for that length of time before bringing them before a judge. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   As to the lack of a remedy whereby the length of time spent in police custody could be challenged, the Court reiterated that, as it had found in many other cases, the remedy under Article 128 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relied upon by the Turkish Government did not fulfil the requirements of Article 5 § 4. Accordingly, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded EUR 3,500 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,370 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dürdane Aslan and Selvihan Aslan v. Turkey (no. 57908/00)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Dürdane Aslan and her daughter Sevilhan Aslan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952 in 1978 and live in Istanbul.   The first applicant’s husband and the second applicant’s father, Mehmet Aslan, sustained gunshot wounds on 27 April 1992 while delivering bottles of water in a district of Istanbul; he died of his injuries on 6 May 1992. The person who had fired the shots, a police officer who had emptied the magazine of his gun, killing two people and seriously injuring three others, was charged with murder.   On 10 June 1993 Bakırköy Assize Court ruled that no sentence should be imposed, on the ground that the perpetrator of the offence had not been criminally responsible at the relevant time. The applicants brought an action for damages against the Ministry of the Interior, submitting that the authorities had not displayed due diligence in retaining the services of a police officer suffering from a mental disorder.   Istanbul Administrative Court considered that although there had been no tortious intent on the Ministry’s part, it had failed to comply with its positive obligation to ensure that the officer suffering from the disorder was not in possession of the weapon, at least while he was on leave, and awarded the applicants compensation. Its judgment was quashed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 31 October 1997, on the ground that the applicants had not complied with the one-year time-limit for bringing administrative proceedings, the relevant period having started on the date of Mehmet Aslan’s death.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants maintained that the authorities should have revoked the police officer’s licence to carry a weapon as he was suffering from a mental illness. They further complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) that the compensation proceedings had been excessively long.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive EUR 10,000 in respect of damage and EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment) Güler v. Turkey (no. 49391/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, İrfan Güler, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Santiago de Compostela (Spain). At the material time he was a lawyer practising in Istanbul.   On 22 September 1995, a delegation from the Istanbul Human Rights Association, including the applicant, went to Buca Prison to obtain information about the incidents which had resulted in the deaths of three prisoners there the previous day. A scuffle broke out with the police officers present at the prison entrance, and the applicant was subsequently arrested together with 52 other people.   Later that day the applicant was transferred to hospital, where he was found to have a broken finger on his right hand, red patches with oedema on his shoulders, bruising on his hands and left tibia, and a 6 cm stitched-up wound on his left parietal bone. Those findings were confirmed by two further medical examinations carried out in the days following the incidents. A report by a forensic medical expert concluded that the applicant’s injuries rendered him unfit to work for 15 days and would take some 45 days to heal.   The applicant was released the same day and was subsequently prosecuted for organising an unauthorised demonstration. He lodged a criminal complaint against the officers at the İzmir security police headquarters, the anti-terror brigade and the rapid intervention force, alleging bodily harm, torture and assault. On 9 June 1997 İzmir Criminal Court acquitted the police officers concerned. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.   The applicant and his 52 co-defendants were acquitted on 26 April 1996.   The applicant alleged that he was ill-treated on his arrest and that he did not have an effective remedy in the Turkish courts in respect of his allegations. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Since the Turkish Government did not dispute that the injuries found on the applicant’s body had been caused by members of the security forces, the Court had to determine whether the force used had been proportionate in the circumstances. It found that even supposing that the applicant had in fact taken part in an illegal gathering and had offered resistance when the security forces had intervened, there was no evidence that his conduct had been so aggressive that it could only have been brought under control by the use of such a degree of force. The Court considered that the dispersal of a gathering could not in itself provide a sufficient explanation for the severity of the blows to the applicant’s face and head, the many bruises on his body or the fractures to his collarbone and the phalanx of his little finger.   The Court found that it had not been established that the use of force against the applicant had been absolutely necessary to break up a gathering viewed as illegal. Besides the lack of a plausible explanation as to how the applicant’s finger had been broken, the extent and severity of his injuries could not have been consistent with the use by the police officers of only such force as was rendered strictly necessary by his conduct. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   With regard to the investigation conducted into the incidents, the Court noted shortcomings on the Turkish authorities’ part in searching for and identifying the police officers who had struck the applicant during the events in question, and the police officers who had subsequently taken him away from the scene. It considered that the investigations carried out could not be regarded as effective or capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the treatment sustained by the applicant, or of affording him redress. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,000   for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 10 Halis Doğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 50693/99)   Violation of Article 13 The eight applicants, Halis Doğan, Cihan Çapan, Hasan Deniz, Kadri Kaya, Mehmet Zeynettin Unay, Varlık Özmenek, Ragıp Zarakolu and Zeynep Tosun, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1944, 1977, 1974, 1958, 1956, 1943, 1948 and 1973 respectively. They all live in Istanbul, with the exception of Mr Kaya, who lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey) and Mr Özmenek, who lives in Ankara. At the material time they worked for the Turkish daily newspaper Özgür Bakış .   On 7 May 1999 the governor of the state of emergency region issued a decree, applicable with immediate effect, prohibiting the publication and distribution of Özgür Bakış in the provinces in which a state of emergency had been declared, namely Diyarbakır, Hakkari, Siirt, Şırnak, Tunceli and Van. From 7 May 1999 it was forbidden to sell, distribute or store the newspaper in the region concerned.   The applicants complained that the ban on distributing the newspaper constituted unjustified interference with their right to impart information or ideas. They relied, in particular, on Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 7 (no punishment without law).   The Court declared the application inadmissible in respect of Kadri Kaya and Mehmet Zeynettin Unay and admissible in respect of the other applicants’ complaints.   The issue for the Court to determine was whether the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2. It accepted that the political tension caused by terrorist acts in the region concerned at the material time was a factor to be taken into account. However, it observed that the decision to impose the ban had contained no reasons. Nor had there been any indication that the newspaper in question had been likely to impart ideas of violence and rejection of democracy, or had had a potentially damaging impact that warranted its prohibition. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. In view of that finding, it considered it unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 7.   The Court further observed that it had previously held that both the provisions conferring powers on the governor of the state of emergency region to prohibit the circulation and distribution of written material and the manner in which those rules were applied escaped all judicial scrutiny. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded Halis Doğan, Cihan Çapan, Hasan Deniz, Varlık Özmenek, Ragıp Zarakolu and Zeynep Tosun EUR 2,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000   jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3   No violation of Article 5 § 4 İmret v. Turkey (no. 42572/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Abdulcelil İmret, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Batman (Turkey). At the material time he was a member of the executive of the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP).   The applicant was arrested on 16 January 1998 in connection with an investigation into the PKK and was taken into police custody. On 23 January 1998 he was detained pending trial. He appealed against the order for his detention pending trial through the governor of Batman Prison, where he was being held, but was unsuccessful.   On 29 December 1998 Diyarbakır State Security Court sentenced the applicant to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained, in particular, that he not been brought promptly before a judge after his arrest and that he had not been able to obtain legal assistance in challenging the lawfulness of his detention. He also contended under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) that he had not had a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and complained of the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court observed that the applicant had spent seven days in police custody. It could not accept that it had been necessary to detain him for that length of time before bringing him before a judge. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   It considered, however, that the applicant could not complain that he had not had legal assistance in lodging his appeal against the order for his detention pending trial, since he had decided to do so himself without consulting his lawyer. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the state security court’s lack of independence and impartiality. Reiterating 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, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints concerning the unfairness of the proceedings.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,250   for costs and expenses, less the sum of EUR 630   already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 2 (death)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   No violation of Article 3   No violation of Article 5 Mordeniz v. Turkey (no. 49160/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Mehmet Emin Mordeniz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). His parents, Fahriye and Mahmut Mordeniz, were found dead on 3 December 1996.   According to the applicant, on 28 November 1996 at about 9 a.m. plain-clothes police officers arrested his father and told those present that they were taking him to the police station to give a statement. They returned shortly afterwards to collect his mother. The applicant made several requests to the public prosecutor’s office for information as to what had happened to his parents and for an investigation to be opened into their disappearance.   According to the Turkish Government, after reports had been received by the police, the bodies of a man and a woman, subsequently identified in November 1998 as the applicant’s parents, were discovered on 3 December 1996 on the road from Cizre to Silopi with their arms bound by a strip of cloth and their mouths gagged with adhesive tape. An external examination of the bodies, carried out that day, revealed that they had both died of brain damage resulting from bullet wounds.   The public prosecutor asked the security police, among other authorities, to carry out an investigation with a view to identifying the perpetrators of the killing and ascertaining whether the PKK or any other terrorist organisation had been involved. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint in November 1998 in relation to the death of his parents.   The investigation into the death of the applicant’s parents, to date, has not identified those responsible.   The applicant contended that his parents had been the victims of an extrajudicial execution. He relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   In the light of the evidence before it, the Court considered that a finding to the effect that the applicant’s parents had been killed by agents of the State or with their connivance would be based more on speculation and assumption than on reliable inference. In those circumstances, it found that Turkey’s responsibility for the killings had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 on that account.   As regards the investigation into the deaths, the Court noted in particular that the inquiries made had been directed solely against the PKK or other illegal authorities. Furthermore, as the investigation had been conducted in conjunction with an investigation into a separate offence, it had not been coordinated or centralised and had been incomplete. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 as regards the investigation into the case.   As Turkey’s responsibility in the killing of the applicant’s parents had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, the Court considered that the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 5 were devoid of any factual basis.   It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of those Articles.   Lastly, the Court observed that Turkey could not be regarded in the present case as having conducted an effective criminal investigation, as required by Article   13. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of that article.   Since the applicant had not submitted any claims for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court considered that no award should be made. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Refik Karakoç v. Turkey (no. 53919/00)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Refik Karakoç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Ankara.   He was a member of the central committee of the Democracy Party ( Demokrasi Partisi ), which was dissolved in 1993. On 26 June 1993, at the party’s annual congress, the applicant gave a speech containing an analysis of the policy being pursued by the Turkish Government. He was charged with disseminating separatist propaganda on account both of his comments at the congress and of the distribution of a leaflet entitled “No to war – a democratic solution”, which sought to foster awareness among the public that the Kurdish problem could only be solved by democratic means and not by violence.   On 17 November 1998 Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to penalties including two years’ imprisonment. Following the entry into force of an amnesty law (no. 4616 of 22   December 2000), the state security court stayed the execution of the prison sentence.   The applicant submitted that his criminal conviction had infringed his right to freedom of thought, expression and association. He relied on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   The Court decided to examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 10. It considered that the reasons given by the Turkish courts could not be considered sufficient in themselves to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The applicant’s comments had been made in his capacity as a politician, a player on the Turkish political scene, had not encouraged the use of violence or armed resistance or insurrection, and had not amounted to hate speech; that, in the Court’s view, was an essential factor to take into account. The nature and severity of the penalties imposed were further factors to consider.   The applicant’s conviction in the present case had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and thus not “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Selçuk v. Turkey (no. 21768/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Vehbi Selçuk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Izmir.   The applicant, a minor (aged 16) at the relevant time, was arrested on 27 December 2001 and charged with robbery. He was held in pre-trial detention for almost four months before being released. His trial is still pending.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Having regard particularly to the fact that the applicant was a minor at the time, the Court found that the Turkish authorities failed to convincingly demonstrate the need for the applicant’s detention on remand for more than four months. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 750 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 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:   Acar and Others v. Turkey (no. 53796/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kaba and Güven v. Turkey (no. 59774/00) Kuzu and Others v. Turkey (no. 44000/98) In these three cases the applicants, all of whom are Turkish nationals, complained of delays in the payment of compensation awarded to them following the expropriation of their property. They further submitted that the amounts they had been paid had not taken into account the actual rate of inflation between the time at which they had been assessed and the date of payment. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Kaba and Güven v. Turkey the applicants also complained that the length of the proceedings had breached Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court declared the applications admissible in respect of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only. It held unanimously in each case that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded the following aggregate amounts, in euros, in each case. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Acar and Others v. Turkey 28   167 1,000 Kaba and Güven v. Turkey 85 185 1,000 Kuzu and Others v. Turkey 80   029 1,000   Budak and Others v. Turkey (no. 57345/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Vahdettin Budak, Mehmet Emin Yalçın, Songül Karatağna and Tayyip Ölmez, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977, 1976, 1974 and 1968 respectively and were serving their prison sentences in Nazilli at the time of their applications to the Court.   They were arrested between February and April 1998 and remanded in custody, accused of membership of or aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. All four were convicted as charged by İzmir State Security Court and sentenced to between five years imprisonment and, in the case of Mr Budak, life imprisonment.   The applicants complained that they were denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the court which tried and convicted them. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Dunda v. Ukraine (no. 23778/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Patrino v. Ukraine (no. 26907/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Koshchavets v. Ukraine (no. 12170/03)   Violation of Article 13     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kotelnikova v. Ukraine (no. 21726/03)   Violation of Article 13 In these four cases the applicants, all of whom are Ukrainian nationals, complained of the failure to enforce court orders for the payment of salary arrears to them. With the exception of Mr Koshchavets, they all relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Mr Koshchavets and Ms Kotelnikova also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The Court reiterated that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt and that there could be no justification for a substantial delay in paying applicants compensation. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in the cases of Dunda, Patrino and Kotelnikova and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 in the cases of Koshchavets and Kotelnikova .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded EUR 1,600   to Mr Dunda, EUR 1,000 to Ms   Patrino, EUR 830 to Mr Koshchavets and EUR 1,920 to Ms Kotelnikova, for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Length-of-proceedings case   Ezel Tosun v. Turkey (no. 33379/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The Court awarded: -             for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 8,545 -             for costs and expenses: EUR 1,000.   ***   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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights.