CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 avril 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2C1964B3 { width:2.09pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s79893CFE { width:99.49pt; display:inline-block } .s367DA1BE { width:72.15pt; display:inline-block } .sEB95B278 { width:124.14pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC3E2AEC5 { width:44.12pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sDB3A5172 { width:14.13pt; display:inline-block } .s10B11425 { width:120.13pt; display:inline-block } .s88EBB2FD { width:117.45pt; display:inline-block } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s81ECDE28 { width:224.86pt; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s7150EC8D { width:43.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sB66A2442 { width:26.81pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   211 11.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, France, Hungary and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 28 Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.   Cabourdin v. France (application no. 60796/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Thierry Cabourdin, is a French national who was born in 1951 and lives in Voisins-le-Bretonneux (France).   In 1996 the BNP brought proceedings against him and his wife for defaulting on the monthly repayments of a property loan granted them by the bank. They, in turn, brought proceedings against the bank, seeking to have the loan declared null and void on the ground that the bank had not sent them the depreciation schedule with the loan offer, which had been a statutory requirement at the time.   While the case was pending, Law no. 96-314 of 12 April 1996 “making various economic and financial provisions” came into force, section 87(1) of which amended, with retrospective effect, the provisions of the Consumer Code relating to loan offers. Applying that Law, the Paris tribunal de grande instance dismissed the action brought by the applicant and his wife. They unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Cassation.   The applicant claimed that the retrospective application of the 12 April 1996 Law had infringed his right to a fair hearing. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the enactment of the 12 April 1996 Law had in reality determined the substance of the dispute and made any continuation of the proceedings futile. There had not therefore been equality of arms between the two private parties, since the State had found for one of them by having the Law in question enacted. In any event, the Court pointed out that although the French State had not, as such, been a party to the dispute, it had nonetheless been a payee in its capacity as indirect shareholder in the bank concerned and had not therefore been “neutral” regarding the outcome of the case.   With regard to whether the interference had been in the public interest, the Court reiterated that in theory a financial ground could not alone justify this sort of legislative measure. In the present case there had been nothing to support the French Govenment’s argument that, without the enactment of the Law in question, the impact would have been so great that it would have endangered the stability of the banking sector and economic activity in general.   In the Court’s view, the legislative measure had not been justified by compelling grounds of the general interest. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6   §   1 and that it was not necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well. The Court awarded the applicant 10,000   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 5,736.22 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Fejes v. Hungary (no. 7873/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mohai v. Hungary (no. 30089/03) The applicants, István Fejes and Eszter Brigitta Mohai, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1959 and 1973 respectively and live in Veszprém (Hungary).   Mr Fejes was the subject of criminal proceedings which began on 7 November 1994. He was later charged with being an accomplice to aggravated fraud and acquitted. His acquittal was upheld on appeal on 26 September 2005.   Ms Mohai was charged with robbery and other offences on 21 May 1991 and detained on remand for almost a year. She was later sentenced to a one-year suspended prison sentence. The judgment was served on 7 August 2003.   The applicants complained in particular about the length of the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted nearly ten years and ten months in the Fejes case. In the Mohai case, the Court took into account ten years and nine months of the proceedings [3] . Having regard to the circumstances of the cases, 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 in both cases.   They were both was awarded EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Akilli v. Turkey (no. 71868/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Fatime Akıllı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Osmaniye (Turkey).   She was the co-owner of some land in Karaköprü which, according to the Turkish Government, was expropriated by the Ministry of Defence in 1975 and the compensation frozen in an account. At the Ministry’s request, the property title was registered in the Treasury’s name in 1988.   The applicant sought compensation for the expropriation of her property. She argued, among other things, that, as she had not been notified, she had not learnt of the transfer of her property title to the Ministry of Defence until 5 October 1998. The court granted her application and awarded her expropriation compensation of EUR 9,000. However, on 24   February 2000 the Court of Cassation set that judgment aside. Applying section 38 of the Expropriation Act of 1983 (Law no. 2942), it held that the applicant’s claims were time-barred since the land in question had been occupied by the authorities for more than 20 years.   The applicant complained that she had been deprived of her property by the authorities without compensation. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court found that the applicant had a pecuniary interest – the corollary of the loss of her property title – on account of the failure to notify her of the decision transferring the title to the authorities. She had accordingly been able to bring an action within one month of the date on which she had learnt of the measure, namely, 5 October 1998. Moreover, the applicant’s property title had been annulled without her being paid any compensation.   Although under Turkish law she still had a right to compensation on account of the lack of notification, her claim had been dismissed by the Court of Cassation by retrospectively applying section   38 of the Expropriation Act. The application of section 38 had had the effect of depriving the applicant of any possibility of obtaining compensation for the annulment of her property title. That interference, although based on a statute that had been valid at the material time, could only be regarded as arbitrary in so far as no compensation procedure capable of maintaining the fair balance which had to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights had been put in place. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint based on Article 6 and awarded the applicant EUR   636 for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dicle v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 46733/99)   Violation of Article 10 Mehmet Hatip Dicle, a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Ankara, is a former Member of Parliament for the DEP ( Demokrasi Partisi – pro-Kurdish political party) whose dissolution was ordered in 1994.   In 1995 the applicant was invited to take part in a seminar organised in commemoration of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He was in prison at the time and sent a text he had written in prison criticising the overall human-rights situation in Turkey and particularly the policy being conducted by the authorities in the areas inhabited principally by Kurdish citizens.   Following publication of the seminar report, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. On 5 August 1998 he was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction between social classes, races and religions. Execution of sentence was deferred in 1999 and the conviction erased in 2003 since the applicant had not committed any offence during the three-year deferment of sentence.   Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained that his criminal conviction had interfered with his liberty of expression.   The Court held that the grounds relied on by the Turkish courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. It also noted that although certain particularly acerbic passages of the article had portrayed the State in a most negative light, so that it carried hostile undertones, it had not encouraged the use of violence, armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech. That, in the Court’s view, was an essential factor to be taken into consideration.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 10 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500   for costs and expenses, less the EUR 701   already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Emin Yaşar v. Turkey (no. 44754/98) Karakaş and Bayır v. Turkey (no. 74798/01) Emin Yaşar, a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Fatsa (Turkey), was prosecuted for belonging to an illegal armed organisation. In 1997 the proceedings were terminated as being time-barred. Fatma Karakaş and Derya Bayır, Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1973, respectively, and live in Istanbul, were prosecuted for participating in an illegal public demonstration during which State property was destroyed. Judgment was deferred in 2001.   In both these cases the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that in the case of Emin Yaşar , the proceedings had lasted 16 years, ten months and 13 days, of which it could take account only of ten years, five months and two days [4] , and in the case of Karakaş and Bayır , the proceedings had lasted nearly five years and two months. Having regard to the circumstances of the cases, the Court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and had not met the “reasonable-time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously in both cases, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded Mr Yaşar EUR 12,500   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500   for costs and expenses. In the case of Karakaş and Bayır it awarded the applicants EUR 4,000 jointly for non-pecuniary damage and 500   EUR pour costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Kekil Demirel v. Turkey (no. 48581/99)   Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment) The applicant, Kekil Demirel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Bergama (Turkey).   He was arrested and taken into police custody on 17 July 1998 on suspicion of belonging to an armed organisation of the far left called “Organisation for restructuring the Communist Party” ( Komünist Parti İnşa Örgütü ). On the same day he underwent a medical examination which revealed the presence of various marks on his body, such as handcuffs on his wrists, scratches on the outer part of his right knee and on the inside of his left ankle.   On his release from police custody, on 23 July 1998, the applicant underwent a further medical examination. A medical report was issued stating that there were scratches on his elbows, a 1 by 0.3 cm bruise on the outer part of his right upper arm, and a scab 1 cm long on the back of his right foot. The forensic doctor stated that, despite the applicant’s allegations that electric shocks had been administered to his genitals and his toes while he had been in police custody, no injuries had been found justifying that allegation. He requested a biopsy.   After being remanded in custody, the applicant was examined by the Bergama prison doctor on 25 July 1998. The doctor noted a 1   cm by   2 cm scab on the applicant’s right heel, two 1 by 2 cm skin erosions on the upper part of his left foot and sensitiveness in the lumbar region.   After receiving a complaint from the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and a complaint from the applicant of ill-treatment inflicted by the police custody officers, the Izmir public prosecutor’s office gave two orders discontinuing the proceedings.   On 14 December 2000 the applicant was sentenced to 12 and-a-half years’ imprisonment for membership of an armed organisation.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated while in police custody.   The Court reiterated that where a person sustained injuries during police custody, while having been entirely under the control of police officers, strong presumptions of fact would arise in respect of injuries occurring during that detention.   It noted that the medical reports of 23 and 25 July 1998, which had been drawn up at the end of the applicant’s time in police custody, had recorded marks that were entirely different from those mentioned in the report made at the start of police custody. The marks recorded in those reports largely corresponded to those that would have been left by the treatment described by the applicant. It was true that no marks had been revealed that bore out the allegation of electric shocks. However, nor did the file show that the biopsy requested by the forensic doctor for the purpose of revealing any marks left by the alleged electric shocks had been done subsequently and/or that the results had been taken into consideration by the public prosecutor’s office.   In the absence of a plausible explanation by the Turkish Government, the Court found it to have been established that the marks revealed on the applicant’s body on 23 and 25 July 1998 had been caused by inhuman treatment for which Turkey was responsible.   Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 12,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 630 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 10 Mehmet Emin Yıldız and Others v. Turkey (no. 60608/00)   Violation of Article 13 The 15 applicants are Turkish nationals and the private limited company ADA Basın Yayın ve Yayıncılık Sanayi. They are the proprietor and employees of the daily newspaper 2000’de Yeni Gündem (“New Agenda for 2000”) together with the publishing company.   The daily 2000’de Yeni Gündem appeared for the first time on 27 May 2000. On 1 June 2000 the provincial governor of the state of emergency region made an order, under section 11(e) of the Emergency Provisions Act (Law no. 2935), indefinitely banning the launch, distribution and sale of the daily in the region concerned.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants alleged that the ban on the launch and distribution of the daily in the state of emergency region had been an unjustified interference with the exercise of their right to impart information or ideas freely. They also complained, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), of their inability to appeal against the ban.   The Court found that the lack of judicial scrutiny in cases concerning administrative bans deprived the applicants of sufficient safeguards to prevent possible abuse. Accordingly, the interference entailed by section 11(e) of Law no. 2935 and its application in the present case could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society” and went beyond the requirements of the legitimate aim pursued. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 10.   Furthermore, having regard to the lack of a remedy under Turkish law by which to challenge the measure taken by the provincial governor, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 13.   In just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 7,500 jointly for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500   for costs and expenses, less the EUR 685 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Sevgi Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 62230/00)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Sevgi Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Urfa (Turkey).   In April 1998 the applicant gave a speech at a meeting organised by the Elazığ district branch of the Party of the Labour Force ( Emeğin Partisi ). She referred, in particular, to the condition of “poor Kurdish labourers who are exiled from their country and their village, and forced to express themselves in a language and a town that they do not know, who are portrayed as potential criminals in slums”, and glorified “the farandole of people who want to express themselves in their own language” and that “of fraternal peoples ...”.   She was prosecuted for inciting the people to hatred or hostility on the basis of discrimination based on membership of a social class, race or religion and sentenced on 28 September 1999 to one year’s imprisonment by the Maltya State Security Court, which decided to defer execution of the sentence.   The applicant complained that her criminal conviction had entailed a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court held that the grounds on which the Turkish courts relied could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Nor it did find anything in the speech that could be regarded as a call for violence, an uprising or any other form of rejection of democratic principles. The applicant had expressed, in idyllic terms, her desire to see people acquire their cultural rights. The Court also noted the severity of the sentence imposed on the applicant.   In those circumstances the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 10 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Şevk v. Turkey (no. 4528/02)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicants, Murat Şevk and his son, Mehmet Şahin Şevk, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1951 and 1979, respectively, and live in Bodrum (Turkey).   On 28 June 2001 the applicants, along with 14 others, were arrested and taken into custody. They were suspected of being involved in an organised criminal gang. The gang was allegedly involved in bribing officials, threatening people into selling their property and in money laundering. On searching Murat Şevk’s home, the police found two pistols, five hunting rifles, a wire strangulation cord, a butterfly knife, four sets of handcuffs, five commando knives, two cartridge clips and twelve cartridges. Both applicants denied any involvement with the gang and Mehmet Şevk was subsequently released.   Murat Şevk was detained on remand by an investigating judge on 5 July 2001 and further detained on 17 October 2001 by İzmir State Security Court.   On 23 October 2001 he filed a petition to challenge the lawfulness of his detention on remand. His request was rejected.   On 13 December 2001 he was released pending trial and on 2 May 2002 Murat Şevk was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment and Mehmet Şevk was acquitted.   Both applicants alleged that they were held in police custody for seven days without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. Murat Şevk also complained that the authorities had failed to review speedily the lawfulness of his detention. They relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Referring to its previous case law the Court held that, even supposing that the activities of which the applicants stood accused were serious, it could not accept that it was necessary to detain them for seven days without being brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. It therefore found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court considers that the period of 41 days which elapsed between the date when Murat Şevk filed a petition to challenge the lawfulness of his detention on remand and when it was rejected by Istanbul State Security Court did not correspond to the requirement of a speedy judicial decision within the meaning of Article 5 § 4. The Court also found that the whole of that period was attributable to the authorities. It therefore held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court awarded Murat Şevk EUR 2,500 and Mehmet Şevk EUR 1,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,500, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5   Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 13   No violation of Articles 2, 3, 6, 14 and 38 Uçar v. Turkey (no. 52392/99) The applicant, Seydo Uçar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey). He is the father of Cemal Uçar who was 26 years old at the time of the events.   The facts are disputed by the parties.   According to the applicant, on 5 October 1999 Cemal Uçar was abducted by four armed men claiming to be policemen. The kidnappers kept him blindfolded, deprived him of food and subjected him to electric shock treatment. He was released by his captors on 2 November 1999. The kidnappers placed a balaclava over his head and told him to lie on the floor and that they would call the police. A few minutes later the police arrived and he was taken into custody for being in possession of a forged identity card which the applicant claimed was planted on him by his kidnappers.   The applicant claimed that his son had been abducted and ill-treated by State agents or people acting with the support, knowledge or acquiescence of the authorities before being handed over to the police.   The Government maintained that the applicant’s son was arrested on 2 November 1999 as he was seen acting suspiciously and found to be carrying a forged identity card. They denied any involvement in the kidnapping.   The applicant’s son was examined by a doctor on the day of his arrest who noted that there were several injuries on various parts of his body. A second medical report drawn up on 11 November noted no injuries. On 11 November 1999 Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered his detention on remand. Cemal Uçar was then transferred to a Diyarbakır E ‑ type prison.   According to Government records, on 24 November 1999 prison officers found Cemal Uçar hanging from a bunk bed by a belt. An onsite inspection was immediately carried out, an autopsy was performed and statements were taken from fellow prisoners and prison officers. The report concluded that the cause of death was mechanical asphyxia resulting from suspension.   The applicant alleged that his son was either killed by the State authorities or by the inmates of the prison ward where he had been incarcerated. The Government maintained that he had committed suicide.   The applicant filed several petitions requesting information on his son’s whereabouts and an investigation into his son’s kidnapping. On 11 November he was informed that he had been detained on remand. No proceedings were ever brought.   The applicant alleged that the Turkish State was responsible for his son’s abduction ill treatment and death. He also contended that his son had been kept in police custody for nine days without being brought before a judge and without having access to his family and a lawyer. He relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 38 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Concerning the applicant’s complaints under Article 2, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Cemal Uçar was, beyond reasonable doubt, killed by State agents or inmates of the prison ward, as alleged by the applicant. Furthermore, it found that the authorities had not failed to fulfil their positive obligation to protect the life of a prisoner. Referring in particular to the results of the two medical reports, the Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the prison authorities knew that Cemal Uçar posed a risk to his own life and needed closer supervision. In addition, the Court considered that the investigation conducted into the death of applicant son’s death could be described as adequate and effective. The Court therefore found unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2.   Concerning Articles 3 and 5 in respect of the disappearance of the applicant’s son, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence on which to conclude that he had been, beyond reasonable doubt, abducted and tortured by or with the connivance of State agents. Furthermore the Court observed that the applicant had not produced any evidence to support those allegations. Moreover, in his statements before the public prosecutor and the Diyarbakır State Security Court, Cemal Uçar did not give a detailed account of the abuse to which he was allegedly subjected while in police custody. As to the treatment of the applicant himself, the Court considered that there were no special factors which would justify finding a violation of Article 3. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 3 and 5 in that respect.   Concerning Article 13, the Court observed that no attempts were made to find the applicant’s son and no attempts were made to obtain evidence in respect of the alleged abduction. It was particularly struck by the fact that although Cemal Uçar’s medical examination of 2   November   1999 revealed that he had been ill-treated and, despite his complaints to the State Security Court that he had been tortured for almost a month, no attempts were made to investigate his allegations. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 in respect of the disappearance and ill-treatment of his son between 5 October and 2   November 1999.   Concerning Article 5 in relation to the length of Cemal Uçar’s detention in police custody, referring to its previous case law, the Court could not accept that it was necessary to detain the applicant’s son for nine days without judicial intervention. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   As to his inability to obtain compensation for the excessive length of detention in police custody, the Court noted that the length of Cemal Uçar’s custody period was in conformity with domestic law in force at the material time. Accordingly, a request for compensation for a period of nine days in police custody would not have succeeded before the domestic courts. In the absence of an enforceable right to compensation, the Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   Regarding the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 that his son had been denied access to a lawyer, since the charges against the applicant’s son were dropped after his death, the Court was not in a position to make an examination of the proceedings as a whole or assess the impact of the absence of representation at the initial stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6.   Concerning Article 8, the Court noted that Cemal Uçar’s detention in police custody between 2   and 11 November 1999 undoubtedly caused anxiety for the applicant, bearing in mind the unexplained disappearance of his son since 5 October 1999. The Court also noted that at the time there was no legal provision in Turkish law governing contacts between a person held in police custody and the members of his or her family and that the Government had not specified the means at Cemal Uçar’s disposal which would have enabled him to communicate rapidly with his family following his detention in police custody. In the absence of a legislative framework providing concrete and effective protection against a violation of Article 8 at the time, the Court considered that the detention of Cemal Uçar in police custody for nine days without contact with his family constituted a violation of Article   8. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8   On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14.   As to the complaint und Article 38, the Court observed that the Government had submitted the requested information and materials and had therefore not fallen short of their obligations. It held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 38.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same conclusions as in similar cases raising analogous issues under the Convention.   Çağdaş Şahin v. Turkey (no. 28137/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Çağdaş Şahin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Izmir.   In 10 May 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having aided and abetted the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation under Turkish law. He was detained on remand two days later and released pending trial on 3 August 2000. The proceedings against him were eventually discontinued.   The applicant unsuccessfully brought proceedings requesting compensation. He claimed he had been unlawfully detained and had been deprived of the opportunity to be acquitted of the charges against him as the proceedings had been discontinued. During the proceedings the written opinions which the Principal Public Prosecutors submitted to the Izmir Assize Court and of the Court of Cassation on the merits of his claim and appeal respectively were never served on him.   The applicant complained in particular that he was denied a fair hearing as he had not been given an opportunity to reply to the written opinions submitted by the Principal Public Prosecutors. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court considered, as it had done in a previous case with similar facts, that the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings had been infringed insofar as he was not given an opportunity to make written observations to the Public Prosecutor’s submissions.   The Court held 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 English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Erçıkdı and Others v. Turkey (no. 52782/99) Fikri Demir v. Turkey (no. 55373/00) Mut v. Turkey (no. 42434/98) Fikri Demir and Rıdvan Mut are Turkish nationals who were born in 1971 and 1983 respectively. They were both convicted by a state security court for their membership of the PKK. Mr Demir was given the death sentence, which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment, and Mr Mut was sentenced to five years and ten months’ imprisonment.   In the case of Erçıkdı and Others the applicants are five Turkish nationals who were the Nazilli district directors of the Labour Party at the time of the events. In October 1997 the applicants were convicted by Izmir State Security Court for provoking hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction between race and region.   They complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that they had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal owing to the presence of a military judge on the bench of state security courts. They also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings leading to their conviction and raised other complaints under Article 6.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 §   1 regarding the complaint based on a lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court. As regards the other complaints relating to the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction. Accordingly, it was unnecessary to examine the complaints.   The Court held unanimously in each of these cases that the present judgments constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants. It awarded Mr Demir EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses, less the EUR   685   already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid, and Mr Mut EUR 2,200. The Court awarded the applicants in Erçıkdı and Others EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French except for Erçıkdı and Others which exists only in English)   Mehmet Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 28169/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Mehmet Kılıç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1927 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey).   He complained of delays in the payment of supplementary compensation for expropriation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. it considered that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 8,750 for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). In the cases of Duhamel v. France and Oberling v. France the applicant also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicants in the Hungarian cases made complaints relying on other articles which the Court declared inadmissible.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Société Au Service Du Développement v. France (no. 40391/02) Bazil v. the Czech Republic (application no 6019/02)   Koříek and Others v. the Czech Republic (no. 77530/01) Csík v. Hungary (no. 33255/02) Kalló v. Hungary (no. 30081/02) Kocsis v. Hungary (no. 2462/03) Kristóf v. Hungary (no. 23992/02) Ratalics v. Hungary (no. 10501/03) Vondratsek v. Hungary (no. 39073/02)   Violation of Article 6 (length) Violation of Article 13 Duhamel v. France (no. 15110/02) Oberling v. France (no. 31520/02)   ***   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 ).   Press contacts: 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)   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. [3] As from 5 November 1992 when Hungary ratified the Convention. [4] From 22 January 1987, when Turkey recognised the right of individual petition.