CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 22 juin 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 } .s51C4CFB0 { width:200.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s70293CC2 { width:6.79pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s9CB7D71D { width:54.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7FEFA782 { width:61.43pt; display:inline-block } .sDF1F928 { width:12.1pt; display:inline-block } .s7F8C608D { width:77.48pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1AE7BD0 { width:44.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5ED5B900 { width:103.48pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sD3DE65B6 { width:24.12pt; display:inline-block } .s11B45B56 { width:82.79pt; display:inline-block } .s24DC6347 { width:90.8pt; display:inline-block } .s943F7125 { width:104.17pt; display:inline-block } .sBF339177 { width:227.55pt; display:inline-block } .s179C14C4 { width:2.14pt; display:inline-block } .sCF09D108 { width:70.13pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s215CD747 { width:278.85pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sE4FC1787 { width:135.47pt; 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 } .s97C4B4C1 { width:44pt; 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   368 22.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, France, Greece, Italy, Russia, Spain, Switzerland and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 Chamber judgments, none of which are 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.       No violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment) Kazakova v. Bulgaria (application no. 55061/00) Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   The applicant, Penka Atanasova Kazakova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Straja (Bulgaria).   On 13 May 1996 she was accused of stealing two bags in the course of the morning that   belonged to S.V. and his wife and contained documents and money. On learning that her mother and daughter had been questioned by the police, the applicant went to Rakovski Police Station where she admitted taking the bags and offered to return them. In the afternoon, the applicant was visited by a police officer, Y.B., in the shop where she worked. He took the bags from her without checking the contents.   When the victims of the theft went to the police station to recover their belongings, they found that the money, approximately 3,000 US dollars and 40,000 levs had disappeared. Y.B. went to the applicant’s place of work and she accompanied him to the police station for a confrontation with S.V. and his wife. After the confrontation, Y.B. took the applicant out into the corridor where he handcuffed her to a radiator. He returned approximately an hour later at about 10 p.m. with the applicant’s husband and daughter. The applicant was released at about 11.30 p.m.   The following day (14 May 1996) the applicant was examined by a doctor who found numerous cuts and bruises to her body. The doctor considered that the injuries could have been caused by a blunt instrument and were consistent with the applicant’s allegation that she had been beaten with a truncheon.   The applicant lodged a complaint against Y.B. alleging ill-treatment. However, he was found to have no case to answer on 12 May 1997. The applicant lodged various appeals against that decision, but to no avail.   The applicant complained, in particular, under Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that she was ill-treated at Rakovski Police Station.   As regards the allegation of ill-treatment, the Court noted that apart from the applicant, there were no witnesses to the alleged assault. In the circumstances, it was very difficult to establish that her injuries had been caused by the police as she affirmed. In the light of the material before it, the Court found that it had not been established “beyond all reasonable doubt” that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted by the police.   With regard to the fact that the applicant had been handcuffed, the Court reiterated that handcuffing did not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention when it related to lawful arrest or detention and did not entail the use of force or public exposure exceeding what was reasonably considered necessary in the circumstances. In the case before it, the Court was not satisfied that the treatment complained of had attained the requisite level of severity for it to fall within Article 3, since it had been for a very limited period and the applicant had not been exposed to public view.   In those circumstances, the Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 3 on account of the alleged ill-treatment.   As regards the effectiveness of the investigation in the case, the Court noted that the Bulgarian authorities had not been guilty of total inaction and that, following the applicant’s complaint, the Plovdiv military prosecutor had been asked to make inquiries. However, in deciding that there was no case to answer, it was apparent that the prosecutor had relied solely on the statements of Y.B.’s colleagues and the complainants against the applicant, without judging it necessary to hear evidence from the applicant and her relatives or to organise a confrontation. Furthermore, the decisions that there was no case to answer contained no reference to the injuries noted in the medical certificate.   In the circumstances, the Court found that the Bulgarian authorities had failed to investigate the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment thoroughly and effectively. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 and that no separate issue arose under Article 13.   The Court awarded the applicant 2,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses.   Guilloury v. France (no. 62236/00)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 (fairness) and 3 (d) The applicant, Alain Guilloury, is a French national who was born in 1955 and lives at Plouezec (France).   In 1997 the applicant, a confectioner, was prosecuted for sexually assaulting two apprentices aged 16 and 17 he was responsible for training. He was accused of forcing them to have sexual relations with him, of filming their relations without their knowledge and of showing the recordings to his companion.   On 15 January 1998 Saint-Brieuc Criminal Court found the applicant guilty of corruption of a minor, breach of privacy and sexual assault aggravated by abuse of authority. It sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment, six of which were suspended and ordered him to undergo medical treatment. The applicant appealed and asked for statements to be taken from various witnesses. The Court of Appeal refused that request and upheld the convictions for sexual assault and corruption of a minor. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation and renewed his request for statements to be taken from witnesses. On 19 April 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal.   The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) that he had been denied a fair trial in that he had not been permitted to examine or to have examined the prosecution and defence witnesses.   As regards the applicant’s conviction for aggravated sexual assault, the Court noted that the applicant did not dispute the fact that sexual relations had taken place, but denied any use of force or abuse of authority. In order to establish those two elements of the offences, the Criminal Court and the Court of Appeal had essentially relied on the statements of the victims and third parties. The use of force and abuse of authority were decisive elements in the characterisation of the offence. However, the applicant was not given the opportunity to examine or to have examined the prosecution witnesses in relation to that issue, either during the preliminary investigation or at the trial. As regards the defence witnesses, the Court noted that the Court of Appeal had declined to hear evidence from them even though they were present at the hearing. In those circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d).   As to the applicant’s conviction for breach of privacy and corruption of a minor, the Court noted that the statements of the victims and witnesses were not the only evidence on which the Criminal Court and the Court of Appeal had relied in their decisions. They had not therefore been decisive factors in his conviction. As regards the defence witnesses, the applicant had not shown that they would have been able to provide new and relevant evidence for the defence. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) on that account.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,982.25 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gorou v. Greece (No. 3) (no. 21845/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Anthi Gorou, is a Greek national who was born in 1957 and lives in Athens.   In 1998 she lodged a complaint against K.K. alleging malicious prosecution, criminal defamation and abuse of office. K.K. was acquitted of the charges and the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. Her appeal was dismissed as being out of time on 9 January 2003 on the ground that time had started to run on the date the judgment was delivered, not the date it was registered at the court.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that the decision to dismiss her appeal for failure to comply with the time-limit had denied her access to a court.   The Court noted that it had previously ruled that the dismissal of an appeal on points of law as being out of time, on the ground that time started to run when the judgment was delivered and not when it was finalised, violated Article 6 § 1. In the light of that decision and the position which now appeared to have been adopted by the Greek Court of Cassation on the subject, the Court found that the applicant had suffered a disproportionate interference with her right of access to a court and held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on that account.   It further noted that the proceedings had lasted four years and six months for one level of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that period to have been excessive and in breach of the “reasonable-time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   As regards just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Mavromatis v. Greece (no. 6225/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Christos Mavromatis is a Greek national who was born in 1959 and lives in Athens.   He was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment, convertible into a fine, for dishonouring cheques. He appealed against his conviction to the Court of Cassation. On 30 October 2003 the Court of Cassation declared his appeal inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had not surrendered to custody or paid the fine in lieu, despite having the means and the ability to do so.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that he had been denied access to a court by the Court of Cassation’s decision.   The Court reiterated that where an appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible solely because the appellant had not surrendered to custody, the ruling compelled the appellant to subject himself in advance to the deprivation of liberty resulting from the impugned decision, even though that decision could not be considered final. There had therefore been a breach of the very essence of the right of access to a court. The Court consequently held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant may have sustained and awarded him EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Metelitsa v. Russia (no. 33132/02)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 (fairness) and 3 (c) The applicant, Yevgeniy Anatolyevich Metelitsa, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and is now serving his sentence in Irkutsk (Russia).   In December 2001 Nazarovo Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region found the applicant and his co-defendants guilty of grievous bodily harm and the applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in a correctional colony. He appealed and seeking re-characterisation of the criminal offence and reduction of the sentence. He requested that his lawyer be present at the appeal hearing, although he did not wish to attend himself. The hearing however took place in the absence of both the applicant and his lawyer.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that neither he nor his lawyer was apprised of the appeal hearing and given an opportunity to plead his defence before the appeal court. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3(c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).   Taking into account what was at stake for the applicant, who had been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, the Court did not consider that Krasnoyarsk Regional Court could properly determine the issues before it without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the applicant either in person or through some form of legal assistance. Furthermore, the Court noted that a prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing and made oral submissions to the court. In those circumstances and having regard to the applicant’s request that his lawyer be invited to participate in the appeal hearing in his absence it was incumbent on the domestic authorities to ensure at least the lawyer’s presence at the hearing.   The Court therefore concluded that the proceedings before Krasnoyarsk Regional Court did not comply with the requirement of fairness and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c). The applicant was awarded EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Díaz Ochoa v. Spain (no. 423/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Ramon Díaz Ochoa, is a Spanish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Fuenlabrada (Spain).   He worked for a company based in Humanes (Madrid) that traded under the name “Plasti-Rec”. Along with other employees, he was a shareholder in the company. Among the other shareholders was a person called J.M.M. The applicant was dismissed in 1988 and assigned his powers as the company’s delegated adviser to J.M.M., who took over the management of the company until its closure in January 1989.   In 1991 J.M.M. brought an action against the Department of Social Security ( INSS ) and the Ramón Díaz Ochoa company, trading as “Plasti-Rec” for an order adjusting the basis on which his invalidity pension had been calculated. In the summons, J.M.M. gave the address of the liquidated company that had been based in Humanes as the address of the co-defendant Ramón Díaz Ochoa and invited the court to serve a summons on the applicant. The summons was returned marked “not at this address”.   In a judgment of 31 July 1992 delivered in the applicant’s absence and published in the Official Gazette of the Community of Madrid, the Valencia employment judge no. 7 granted J.M.M.’s claim in part against the Department of Social Security and the “Ramón Díaz Ochoa, Plasti-Rec company”. He further ruled that the Department of Social Security was entitled to a contribution from the co-defendant company. When the judgment was enforced, the Department of Social Security applied for an attachment of earnings order against the applicant.   The applicant did not become aware of the proceedings until October 1998. He applied for an order setting aside the judgment against him on the ground that he had not been notified of the proceedings and that his home address was in Fuenlabrada. His application was dismissed as being out of time as the time-limit applicable to such applications (five years from publication of the judgment on the merits in the Official Gazette) had expired. The applicant also applied for a review and lodged an amparo appeal, all to no avail.   The employment judge made an order for the attachment of the applicant’s current account and part of his wages until the amount of EUR 17,183 due to the Department of Social Security had been paid. The current monthly deductions come to EUR 102.64 .   The applicant complained that he had never been informed of the proceedings that had been brought against him as a co-defendant. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found that the highly unusual combination of events in the case before it in which the applicant had had no reason to suspect that proceedings had been brought against him when his address was available in the case file that had been before the judge who decided the merits had deprived him of effective access to a court to defend the proceedings. The courts to which the applicant had applied for an order setting aside the original order or had appealed had failed, owing to an unduly narrow construction of the law, to remedy the situation caused by the applicant’s absence from the main proceedings. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of the very essence of the applicant’s right to a court.   It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was unnecessary to examine the complaints under Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,999 for costs and expenses.(The judgment is available only in French.)   Ayaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 11804/02)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicants, 13 Turkish nationals, were arrested and taken into police custody in April 2001 in connection with police operations against an illegal organisation, the PSK-KPD (Revolutionary Party of Kurdistan).   The applicants complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the length of time they had been held in police custody and their inability to obtain a review of the lawfulness of their detention.   The Court noted that the applicants had been held in police custody for periods ranging between five and seven days. It could not accept that it should have been necessary to hold them for that length of time without bringing them before a judge and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   In the absence of any satisfactory explanation by the Turkish Government, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of a remedy enabling the applicants to complain of the length of time they had been held in police custody.   As regards just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants a total of EUR 18,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Eytişim Ltd. Şti. v. Turkey (no. 69763/01)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant company, Eytişim Ltd. Şti., is a publishing house which publishes documentary magazines and books in Istanbul under the name of Ürün .   In September 2000 the applicant company published a book entitled “The Documents of the Fifth Congress of the Communist Party of Turkey” ( Türkiye Komünist partisi 5. Kongre belgeleri ), which took place in 1983. The book contained various contributions on historical, economic and political topics and the programme of the Turkish Communist Party concerning “the national Kurdish problem” which was drafted at its Fifth Congress in 1983. The cited passages purported to provide a brief record of the “conditions of fascism in Kurdistan” and “the need for the Turkish and Kurdish peoples to engage in a common combat”. They also proposed “an action plan to defend the democratic national rights of the Kurds”.   The public prosecutor’s office issued instructions for the seizure of the books and instituted criminal proceedings charging the editor of the applicant company with separatist propaganda. However, the police were unable to make any seizures as all 150 copies of the book had been sold. On 28 March 2003 the editor was sentenced, among other things, to 13 months and 10 days’ imprisonment.   The applicant company complained of the seizure of the book, in particular, under Article 10 (freedom of expression) .   The Court accepted that the use of expressions such as “the conditions of fascism”, “chauvinistic pressures”, “to support the Kurds’ right to secede”, “the combat of the two peoples against the common enemy” lent a degree of virulence to the passages concerned. However, when taken in context, the remarks could not be considered to constitute incitement to violence, hostility or hatred between citizens. They did not contain a call for bloody revenge or seek to stir hatred or violence.   The Court found that the grounds that had been relied on by the Turkish courts could not be regarded by themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded the applicant company EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Gökçe and Demirel v. Turkey (no. 51839/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicants, Caferi Sadık Gökçe and Rıza Demirel, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975 and 1969, respectively, and were detained in Gebze Prison (Turkey) at the time of their application to the Court.   On 9 March 1995 the applicants were arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the DEV-SOL (Revolutionary Left). In March 1995 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court who ordered their detention on remand. In April 1995 they were indicted under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.   Several hearings were held during which the applicants alleged they had been ill-treated whilst in detention. At the end of each hearing the court dismissed the applicants’ request to be released pending trial and ordered their detention on remand. It justified its decisions having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence, the content of the case file and the duration of their detention on remand. The applicants were finally released pending trial on 24 September 1999. In December 2003 the state security court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. That judgment was quashed on appeal and the proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.   The applicants complained that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. They also complained about the length of their detention on remand. They also alleged that the prosecution against them and the judgment of the state security court had both been based on their statements which had been elicited under torture by the police. They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court declared the complaints concerning the length of the applicants’ detention on remand and the criminal proceedings against them admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   The Court noted the lack of sufficient reasoning in the domestic court’s decisions to prolong the applicants’ detention pending trial and that the state security court ordered the applicants’ continued detention on remand using identical, stereotyped terms. Accordingly, it concluded that the length of the applicants’ detention on remand, which lasted over four years and six months had not been justified and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted ten years and ten 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.   The Court awarded each applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Sertkaya v. Turkey (no. 77113/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Abbas Sertkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Muş (Turkey).   On 12 July 1995 the Public Prosecutor at Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant and four other suspects of terrorist offences involving the setting of forest fires in Bursa in 1994. In May 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand and in November 1999 he was released pending trial. He was eventually acquitted in a judgment which became final on 21 February 2001.   The applicant complained in particular about the length of the proceedings relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted five 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 3,420 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Tamer and Others v. Turkey (no. 235/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Fazıl Ahmet Tamer, Erol Kaplan and Hasan Demir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1967 and live in Istanbul. Mr Tamer and Mr Demir are lawyers.   The applicants were arrested on 19 April 1994 on suspicion of being members of an illegal organisation, the Party for the Liberation of the People of Turkey/Union for Radical Reform – Forces for the Liberation of the People ( THKP/Yeniden Kuruluş Birliği/ Halk Kurtuluş Güçleri ). They were taken into police custody and criminal proceedings were brought against them for membership of an armed illegal organisation, aiding and abetting such organisation, and attempting to overthrow the constitutional order of the Republic of Turkey. They were accused of a number of acts of violence.   The applicants made various applications for bail, all of which were dismissed by the state security court, which cited the nature of the alleged offence, the state of the evidence and the need to gather further evidence. On 30 May 2001 the state security court granted the applicants bail in view of the possibility of their being charged with a lesser offence, the fact that all the evidence in the case had been assembled and the length of their detention. The case is currently pending before the Turkish courts.   The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the length of their detention pending trial.   The Court noted that the applicants had been held in pre-trial detention for approximately seven years and one month. The state security court had at regular intervals at the end of each hearing remanded them in custody on grounds that were almost always identical, even stereotyped, concerning the nature of the alleged offence, the state of the evidence, the content of the case file and the length of detention.   The reasons relied on by the state security court could not suffice by themselves to justify the applicants’ continued detention for such a long period. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded each of the applicants EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and, jointly, EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Ucci v. Italy (no. 213/04)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Pellegrino Ucci, is an Italian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Benevento (Italy). He was the owner of 55,810 square metres of agricultural land in Benevento. The authorities took possession of the land with a view to its expropriation and commenced building works. In the absence of a compulsory purchase order or any compensation, the applicant brought an action in damages for the unlawful occupation of his land.   The applicant alleged that the occupation of his land had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   After finding that the applicant’s loss of all ability to dispose of his land, coupled with the lack of any remedy, amounted to de facto expropriation that was incompatible with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It reserved the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction), as it considered that it was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Chebotarev v. Russia (no. 23795/02)   Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Anatoliy Tikhonovich Chebotarev, is a Russian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Novovoronezh (Russia).   The applicant complained that final judgments rendered by Novovoronezh District Court awarding him welfare benefits were not enforced, and one of which was quashed in supervisory review proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant was awarded 10,806 Russian roubles (RUR) (approximately EUR 312) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and RUR 344 (approximately EUR 10) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kömürcü v. Turkey (no. 77432/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Aytekin Kömürcü, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Mardin (Turkey). In July 2000 he was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on points of law on 12 February 2001.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of procedural unfairness in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation in that he had had no means of replying to the Principal Public Prosecutor’s submissions.   The Court reiterated that, having regard to the nature of the Principal Public Prosecutor's submissions, the fact that the defendant was not given an opportunity to make written observations in reply would amount to a violation of Article 6 § 1. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision and awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Konuk v. Turkey (no. 49523/99)   Yılmaz and Barım v. Turkey (no. 47874/99) The applicants, Ali Konuk, Bilgin Yılmaz and Burhan Barım, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952, 1972 and 1968, respectively. They were serving their prison sentences at Bergama Prison (Turkey) at the time of the application.   The applicants were given prison sentences by a state security court for, among other things, being members of an illegal organisation, the TIKB (Turkish Revolutionary Communist Union). Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants contended that their cases had not been heard by an independent and impartial court, because a military judge had sat on the bench of the court which tried them.   The Court found that the applicant’s concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the state security court could be regarded as objectively justified. It therefore held unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     It also noted that in no circumstances could a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established grant a fair trial to those within its jurisdiction; accordingly it found that it was not necessary to consider the applicants other complaints under Article 6.   In the case of Konuk v. Turkey , it held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. The applicants in the case of Yılmaz and Barım v. Turkey did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the specified time-limit. (The Konuk judgment is available in French and the Yılmaz and Barım , in English.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. The applicant in Kirsanova v. Russia also complained under Article 13 that the domestic legal system had failed to afford her an effective remedy against the excessive length of proceedings. In the case of Avakova v. Russia , the Court declared inadmissible the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and the complaint concerning the fairness of the proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kakamoukas and Others v. Greece (no. 38311/02) Avakova v. Russia (no. 30395/04)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kirsanova v. Russia (no. 76964/01)   Violation of Article 13   ***   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.   [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.