CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 février 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC74FC444 { width:24.82pt; display:inline-block } .sCE6CD7A5 { width:102.83pt; display:inline-block } .s55C281ED { width:276.25pt; display:inline-block } .s6066DECA { width:252.25pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .sBD242766 { width:63.47pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s6E470912 { width:109.46pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s2A89A172 { width:167.48pt; display:inline-block } .s49E03F3 { width:99.22pt; display:inline-block } .s8316975 { width:142.81pt; display:inline-block } .sB7F5D93A { width:15.44pt; display:inline-block } .s3FDE8AC { width:166.56pt; display:inline-block } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s1E59FF54 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s35F1F2CB { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s995BFA6B { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E16EC6C { width:82.12pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEA5CB6F2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#000080 } .sBA17865 { width:264.89pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sF92EE1DF { width:142.8pt; display:inline-block } .s4ADA7BF8 { width:162.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD42C3418 { width:74.13pt; display:inline-block } .s55E8F8E6 { width:13.48pt; 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   95 21.2.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Turkey and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly settlement judgment is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Cambal v. the Czech Republic (application no. 22771/04) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Pavel Cambal, is a Czech national who was born in 1964 and lives in Hodonín (Czech Republic).   In 2001 his wife left home, taking the couple’s adoptive daughter with her. On 25 May 2001 the applicant instigated proceedings concerning the exercise of parental authority and subsequently asked the court to rule on his right of access. The case is still pending before the Czech courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained, among other things, of the length of the proceedings in question. He further complained under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings complained of had to date lasted almost four years and eight months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 8.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 4,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 350   for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dostál v. the Czech Republic (no. 26739/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Jaroslav Dostál, is a Czech national who was born in 1947 and lives in Brno (Czech Republic).   After his divorce in 1989, custody of his daughter was awarded to his former wife. As she was preventing him from seeing the child, the applicant asked the district court to rule on his right of access. On 18 October 2005 the court declared that, following the applicant’s withdrawal, the proceedings concerning maintenance were permanently stayed.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that his case was not examined within a “reasonable time,” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court declared the application admissible with regard to the complaint concerning the length of proceedings, and inadmissible as to the remainder.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the duration of five years and five months for two levels of jurisdiction for the disputed proceedings was excessive and did not correspond to the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As the applicant had submitted no claim in respect of just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to award him anything under this head.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Atkın v. Turkey (no. 39977/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Mehmet Atkın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Istanbul.   On 18 May 1989 the Erdirne public prosecutor filed a petition with the Assize Court accusing the applicant of smuggling electronic goods. Criminal proceedings were brought against him and he was convicted as charged and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment on 26 December 1995. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment on 25 December 1996.   The applicant complained in particular that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court declared admissible his complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted seven years and seven months. 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, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 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 Aydın Eren and Others v. Turkey (no. 57778/00)   Violation of Article 13 The applicants, Aydın Eren, and Sülyan and Ece Eren, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1945, 1990 and 1992 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Sülyan and Ece Eren are the daughters of Orhan Eren and his wife Zozan, who both died in September 1997. Mr Aydın Eren is the father of Orhan Eren and father-in-law of Zozan Eren.   On 26 September 1997, Mr and Mrs Eren’s car was found abandoned in a wooded area next to the Lice-Diyarbakır road. The official report noted that no damage or marks were found on the vehicle and that the search carried out at the site had proved unsuccessful.   An investigation was opened and various witnesses were heard, in particular Aydın Eren. He stated that his relatives had gone through the Mermer Gendarmerie’s checkpoint at about 9.45 a.m. and that their car had been found abandoned further along the road. Two cars parked nearby had been spotted by a driver shortly afterwards; Mr Eren also referred to the hostility shown towards his relatives by a particular family and suggested that his relatives might also have been abducted by terrorists.   The investigation has so far been unable to determine what happened to Mr and Mrs Eren.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants submitted that their relatives had been the victims of extrajudicial executions. Alleging a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they likewise complained about the suffering they had endured since their relatives’ death. In addition, relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), they submitted that because there had been no effective investigation they had been deprived of an effective remedy.   Having regard to the evidence before it, the Court considered that it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that a State employee or an individual acting on behalf of the State authorities had been involved in the disappearance of Mr and Mrs Eren, or that Turkey had failed to comply with its positive obligation to protect the couple against a known threat to their lives. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 concerning the disappearance of Mr and Mrs Eren.   However, although the authorities responsible for the investigation could not be accused of inactivity, the Court considered that the manner in which the investigation had been conducted could not be regarded as thorough or satisfactory. The investigation by the Lice prosecutor had lasted more than eight years to date, and the exact circumstances in which Mr and Mrs Eren disappeared had still not been clarified. In addition, it did not appear from the case file that statements had been taken from the gendarmes on duty at the checkpoint or, indeed, from those who had gone through the checkpoint immediately after Mr and Mrs Eren, or from the individuals implicated in certain statements. In those circumstances, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 concerning the investigation.   The Court had no doubt of the profound suffering caused to the applicants by the disappearance of their relatives. However, it pointed out that their allegations that their relatives had been the victims of extrajudicial executions by Turkey had not been substantiated. In addition, examination of the evidence did not allow for the conclusion that the level of gravity required for a violation of Article   3 in that particular type of situation had been reached in the applicants’ case. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Finally, the Court pointed out that Turkey could not be considered to have conducted an effective criminal investigation in this case. Consequently, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 3 Bilen v. Turkey (no. 34482/97)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Mehmet Bilen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   On 14 April 1996 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of the illegal armed organisation Yekbun (United Kurdistan People’s Party). On 19 April 1996 a doctor found that the applicant presented a scab-covered scratch on each wrist and was also complaining of pain in the left arm and back. On the same date the applicant was transferred to Diyarbakır.   On 2 May 1996 he was again examined by a doctor, who found no trace of ill-treatment. Brought before a judge, to whom he complained of having been tortured, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings were brought against him for membership of an illegal armed gang. He was acquitted on 10 April 1997.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained about the treatment inflicted on him by police officers while he was in their custody, consisting in electric shocks, the application of cold water, suspension by the arms and death threats. In addition, relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he complained that the length of his detention by the police had been excessive and that he had not had any remedy whereby he could have had its lawfulness reviewed.   The Court noted that the Turkish Government had failed to provide any explanation for the scars found on the applicant, who had been detained for 18 days without any contact with a lawyer. The scars corresponded to those that would have been left by the ill-treatment described by the applicant, especially suspension by the arms. In those circumstances, the Court found it established that scars on the applicant’s body had originated in treatment for which Turkey bore the responsibility.   Furthermore, the applicant was in a situation that would have caused him to feel vulnerable, powerless and apprehensive of the representatives of the State. Accordingly, the Court considered that the treatment inflicted on him was such as to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his physical or moral resistance.   Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   In addition, the Court could not accept that it had been necessary to hold the applicant in police custody for 18 days before bringing him before a judge. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Noting that the applicant did not have any remedy in Turkish law whereby he could complain of the length of his detention by the police, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 15,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500   for costs and expenses, less EUR 630   already paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Çalışır v. Turkey (no. 52165/99   Violation of Article 3 The applicant, Ahmet Turan Çalışır, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Istanbul.   On 22 May 1997 he was arrested and taken into police custody for questioning about a drug trafficking offence. Released two hours later, the applicant made a complaint of ill-treatment against the police officers responsible for him during his time in police custody; in particular, he alleged that he had been beaten and alleged that the police officers had prevented him from obtaining a medical certificate.   At the prosecution service’s request, the applicant was examined on 30 May 1997 by a doctor, who found bruising on the outside of the nose, subjective pain in the abdominal tissue, compound chest pain on deep respiration and on palpation, and tenderness in the chest. Those findings were confirmed by a second medical examination, carried out on the same day.   Criminal proceedings were brought against the police officers concerned. In 2002 a court found that the proceedings were time-barred.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated while in police custody and that in Turkish law there was no remedy whereby he could complain of that treatment.   The Court noted that the scars found on the applicant’s body corresponded to those that would have been left by the ill-treatment described by him. It considered that it had not been established – given the lack of precision in the medical reports as to the date on which the traumas had occurred and the failure to have a medical report drawn up at the close of police custody – that the marks in question were due to the actions of third parties after the period in police custody. Moreover, the Court noted that no supplementary investigation had been conducted by the authorities to clarify that point.     In those circumstances, the Court found it established that the scars on the applicant’s body had originated in treatment for which Turkey bore the responsibility. Accordingly, it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 700 for pecuniary damage, EUR 10,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Çoban v. Turkey (no. 48069/99)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Küçük Hasan Çoban, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Istanbul.   On 4 November 1998 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody as part of an operation against the illegal organisation TKP/ML-TIKKO. On 11 November 1998 he was brought before a judge, who ordered that he be placed in pre-trial detention.   On 14 February 2002 Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant of “having attempted to overthrow the Turkish constitutional order” and sentenced him to the death penalty, which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment.     The applicant complained about the length of his detention in police custody and the lack of a remedy whereby he could have had its lawfulness reviewed. He relied on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court observed that the applicant had spent seven days in police custody. Even supposing that the activities of which he was accused had been linked to terrorism, it could not accept that it had been necessary to detain him for so long without judicial intervention. Consequently, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   3.   Further, the Court noted that the judge had not intervened until the end of the period in police custody, that is to say seven days after the arrest. In view of its conclusion with regard to compliance with Article 5 § 3, the Court considered that such a lengthy period sat ill with the notion of “speedily,” and it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500   in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500   for costs and expenses, less EUR 630   already received from the Council of Europe by way of legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 3 Doğanay v. Turkey (no. 50125/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Süleyman Doğanay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Mardin (Turkey).   On 25 May 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempting to steal a bicycle and taken into police custody in Istanbul. After being brought before a judge, he was released on the following day, namely 26 May 1998. On the same date, the applicant lodged a complaint of ill-treatment against the police officers responsible for him during the police detention, whom he accused of having beaten and threatened him and of having beaten him with truncheons on the soles of the feet and on the hands.   At the request of the Istanbul public prosecution service, again on 26 May 1998, the applicant was examined by a doctor, who found hyperaemia on the hands and old scab-covered skin lesions on the right knee and on the left ankle. Having questioned the police officers implicated by the applicant, the public prosecutor issued an order finding that there was no case to answer on 10 February 1999.   The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated while in police custody and that in Turkish law there was no remedy whereby he could complain of that treatment. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that, for almost eight hours, the applicant had been under the supervision of police officers at the police station. In the absence of a medical examination at the beginning of the period in police custody, it had not been established that the marks found on the applicant’s body had been caused by the actions of third parties before the period in police custody. Further, the scars found on the applicant’s hands corresponded to those that would have been left by the ill-treatment that he described, namely truncheon blows. In those circumstances, the Court found it established that the scars on the applicant’s body had originated in treatment for which Turkey bore the responsibility.   Considering, moreover, that the applicant had been underage at the relevant time, and taking account of the fact that he had been deprived of the assistance of a lawyer during his detention at the police station, circumstances which would have caused him to feel vulnerable, powerless and apprehensive of the representatives of the State, the Court considered that the treatment inflicted on the applicant was such as to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating him and possibly breaking his physical or moral resistance.   Consequently, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   At the same time, the Court noted that the criminal-law remedy had given the applicant no reasonable basis for seeking to obtain redress before the administrative or civil courts, since in both those proceedings he would have been obliged, at the least, to prove that he had been the victim of ill-treatment during the period in police custody. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000   in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500   for costs and expenses, less EUR 630   already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Mehmet Fehmi Işık v. Turkey (no. 62226/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Mehmet Fehmi Işık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and is at present imprisoned in Nazilli Remand Prison (Turkey).   On 12 August 1999 Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant of separatist activities on account of his links with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on points of law on 13 December 1999.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation were not fair, on the basis that it had been impossible for him to reply to the Principal Public Prosecutor’s submissions.   The Court reiterated that it had already held that, having regard to the nature of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s submissions and the fact that it was impossible a defendant to reply to them in writing, failure to communicate the latter’s submissions entailed a violation of Article 6 § 1. As it saw no reason to reach a different opinion in this case, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Memiş v. Turkey (no. 42953/98)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Yusuf Memiş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1944 and was living at the material time in the village of Selman (Turkey). His son, Mehmet Memiş, was killed by a gunshot in June 1996, at the age of 16, during a military operation.   On the evening of 28 June 1996, alerted to the presence of members of the PKK in the area, soldiers from the gendarmerie station at the Dicle dam were deployed around the village of Selman. Using a heat-seeking camera, three armed terrorists were spotted. The soldiers opened fire and the applicant’s son, who was on the terraced roof of their house, was hit by a bullet, the origin of which is disputed by the parties.     The Eğil prosecutor’s office opened an investigation. On 29 August 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint against the gendarmes whom he considered responsible for his son’s death; he stated that the commandant of the Diyarbakır gendarmerie regiment, among others, had visited him on the day after the incident to express his condolences, implying that his son had been the victim of a military blunder.   On 13 November 1997 the Administrative Council of the Eğil district issued an order finding that there was no case to answer.   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant submitted that his son had been killed by the security forces and complained about the inadequacy of the investigation conducted into the circumstances of his death. The case has been struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive 15,000   pounds sterling, or the equivalent of EUR 21,945.87. Turkey also made the following declaration: “The Government of the Republic of Turkey regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions. “The Government accepts that, in cases of death, the failure of the authorities to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances surrounding the death constitutes a violation of Articles 2 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, the Government undertake to adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the right to life – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – is respected in the future. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of deaths in circumstances similar to those of the instant application as well as more effective criminal investigations. “The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place.”   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Odabaşı and Koçak v. Turkey (no. 50959/99)   Violation of Article 10 The applicants, Yılmaz Odabaşı and Niyazi Koçak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in Ankara.   In May 1996 Mr Koçak published a book entitled Düş ve Yaşam (The Dream and the Life), a compendium of articles criticising Kemalism which had been published between 1993 and 1996, and which Mr Odabaşı had collected.     On 3 June 1998 Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicants of defaming the memory of Atatürk. In consequence, it sentenced Mr Odabaşı to one year and six months’ imprisonment and ordered Mr Koçak to pay a fine. Those sentences were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 5 February 1999.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants submitted that their criminal conviction had interfered with their freedom of expression   The Court could not overlook the fact that Atatürk, the founding father of Turkey, was an emblematic figure in contemporary Turkey. In punishing the applicants, the Turkish authorities had wished to act to ensure that Turkish society, which was attached to the figure of Atatürk, did not feel that its feelings were being attacked in an unwarranted manner. However, on examining the offending statements as a whole, it had to be said that they did not target Atatürk directly and personally, but rather the “Kemalist” ideology.   The Court then noted that the applicants had not made value judgments and had restricted themselves to relating certain events in an introductory manner, while inviting the reader, and more specifically the Turkish left, to respond. As to the relevance of the events related in the book, the Court noted that the author had based his work on information which was already available to a wide public and that the failure to mention his sources was not such as to call into question their relevance.   In conclusion, the Court held that the reasons advanced in the decisions by the Turkish courts could not be regarded as a relevant and sufficient justification for the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. In particular, the Court paid particular attention to the terms used in the book. It considered that the disputed passages did not exhort to the use of violence, armed resistance or revolt; nor did they amount to hate speech.   Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. By way of non-pecuniary damage, it awarded EUR 6,000 to Mr Odabaşı and EUR 2,450 to Mr Koçak; in addition, it awarded them EUR 2,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (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 Articles 5, 6 and 8   Violation of Article 13 Şeker v. Turkey (no. 52390/99)   No violation of Article 14 The applicant, Mehmet Mehdi Şeker, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Bismil (Turkey).   The applicant’s 23 year-old son, Mehmet Şah Şeker, disappeared in October 1999 on his way home from work. The facts surrounding the disappearance are disputed between the parties.   The applicant maintained that he was told by eye-witnesses that his son had been taken away by plain-clothed police officers in a car on or around 9 October 1999. The applicant’s legal adviser informed the applicant that he had seen his son’s university identity card in a case file brought against members of the Hizbullah before Diyarbakır State Security Court. The applicant tried unsuccessfully to retrieve the document.   The Government submitted that after taking statements from the applicant and his son’s work colleagues, the Security Directorates in Bismil and Diyarbakır concluded that Mehmet Şah Şeker had not been taken into custody.   In February 2002, following a request by the International Law and Foreign Relations Directorate of the Ministry of Justice to carry out an effective investigation, the Bismil and Diyarbakır public prosecutors examined custody records and took statements from the applicant, as well as from those who had been in custody at the Security Directorates in Diyarbakır and Bismil. The investigation is ongoing.   The applicant complained that his son was abducted and killed by agents of the State and that the national authorities had failed to conduct an adequate and effective investigation. He relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). He also contended that the Government had failed to submit crucial documents concerning his son’s disappearance to the Court relying on Article 38 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   The Court considered that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant’s son was, beyond reasonable doubt, abducted and subsequently killed by State agents and accordingly found no violation of Article 2 on that account. However it did find that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the disappearance. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 on that account and also of Article 13, since the applicant had been denied the possibility of obtaining an effective remedy in respect of his complaints.   The Court also found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the applicant’s son had been subjected to ill-treatment or torture by the security forces. Furthermore, it noted that although the inadequacy of the investigation may have caused the applicant anguish and mental suffering, no special factors which had been established which would justify finding a violation of Article 3.   The Court found that there was no factual basis on which to conclude that there had been violations of Articles 5, 6, or 14. It also found that the Government had complied with its obligations under Article 38.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the national authorities’ failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into his son’s disappearance and a violation of Article   13. It held that there had been no violations of the remaining articles. It awarded the applicant and the beneficiaries of the estate of Mehmet Şah Şeker EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 7,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Tüzel v. Turkey (no. 57225/00)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Abdullah Levent Tüzel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul. He is the president of the socialist party EMEP.   In November 1999 the president of the executive committee of the EMEP’s local branch informed the governor of Diyarbakır, a region subject to the state of emergency, of their intention to distribute posters condemning the state of emergency and requested the necessary authorisation. The governor issued an order prohibiting the putting up and distribution of the posters in question, and ordered that they be confiscated in the light of section 11 (e) of Law no. 2935 on regions subject to the state of emergency.   The applicant alleges that the prohibition on putting up and distributing posters supporting his party breached Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court decided to examine the complaint alleging a violation of Articles 10 and 11 from the perspective of Article 10 alone. The question before it was to determine whether the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression could be considered necessary in a democratic society. The Court noted that section 11 (e) of Law no. 2935 on the state of emergency and section 1   (a) of Legislative Decree no. 430, were drafted in very broad terms and granted the governor of the state of emergency region vast powers to impose administrative bans on the publication and distribution of publications. Neither those provisions nor the manner in which the rules were applied were subject to strict and effective judicial scrutiny, thus depriving the applicant of sufficient safeguards against possible abuse.   Having considered the background to the case submitted to it, and in particular the difficulties associated with the fight against terrorism, the Court found that the disputed ban could not be considered “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Further, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of a remedy in Turkish law to challenge the disputed measures, and considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint submitted under Article 14.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500   EUR for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cuma Ali and Betül Doğan v. Turkey (no. 76478/01) Kavasoğlu v. Turkey (no. 76480/01) Yüce v. Turkey (no. 75717/01) In all three cases the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), of delays in the payment of additional compensation that was awarded to them for expropriated property. They further alleged that the interest they had received did not reflect the actual rate of inflation between the date the award was assessed and the date of payment. They also complained about the length of the proceedings, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint raised under Article 6 § 1. It awarded Cuma Ali and Betül Doğan EUR 2,106, jointly, in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. It awarded EUR 4,790 to Sabahattin Kavasoğlu and EUR 569 to Mehmet Yüce for pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,000, each, for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Zherdin v. Ukraine (no. 53500/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Viktor Yuriyovych Zherdin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Kramatorsk (Ukraine).   The applicant complained that a final judgment in his favour was quashed in supervisory review proceedings, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court noted that a final and binding judgment of 13 April 2000 given by the Kramatorsk City Court in the applicant’s favour was set aside by the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court in supervisory review proceedings, following a protest lodged by the President of that court, whose power to lodged protests was not subject to any time-limit, so that judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely. There had therefore been a breach of the principles rule of law and legal certainty in the applicant’s case.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 90 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Klepetář v. the Czech Republic (no. 19621/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The Court awarded: For costs: EUR 500     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [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.