CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   359 20.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Poland, Slovakia, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 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.     A.S. v. Poland (application no. 39510/98)    Two violations of Article 5 § 1    Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 The applicant, A.S., is a Polish national born in 1958 who lives in Wrocław (Poland).   In February 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and was remanded in custody by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor. His appeal against the remand order was dismissed and his detention was subsequently prolonged several times despite his appeals for release.   On 24 April 1997 the Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant. At the beginning of May 1997, the applicant’s counsel requested the applicant’s immediate release, submitting that the last detention order had expired on 30 April 1997. In June 1997 Jelenia Góra Regional Court dismissed that request. It considered that it had not been obliged to take action before the expiry of the previous detention order because the bill of indictment had been issued. Meanwhile, on 27 May 1997 the court once again prolonged his detention which was further prolonged until 31 December 1998.   On 7 December 1998 the Regional Court made a request to the Supreme Court to further prolong the applicant’s detention. On 22 December 1998 the Supreme Court sent a fax to the remand centre where the applicant was detained stating that it would deal with that request on 6 January 1999, regardless of the fact that the previous detention order would expire on 31 December 1998.   On 31 December 1998 the applicant and his counsel requested that he be either provided with a court decision prolonging his detention, or immediately released. Their requests were refused and on 6 January 1999 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant’s detention.   On 31 May 1999 he was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained that from 1 to 27 May 1997 and from 1 to 6 January 1999 he was unlawfully detained. He further complained that he had not been brought promptly before a judge and that a decision to remand him in custody was given by a prosecutor. Lastly he complained that he had no right to compensation for his unlawful detention. The applicant relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found, as it had done in previous cases with similar issues, that the practice of keeping a person in detention under a bill of indictment was inconsistent with the lawfulness requirement of Article 5 § 1.   It therefore held unanimously that the applicant’s pre-trial detention between 1 and 27 May 1997 was in breach of Article 5 § 1.   The Court observed that the applicant’s detention after 31 December 1998 until 6 January 1999 was not based on any judicial decision. It was clear that neither the fax sent by the Supreme Court on 22 December 1998 nor the application for prolongation made by the Regional Court on 7 December 1998 could be qualified as a judicial order. The Court therefore also held, unanimously, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 for that period.   As it had already done in previous Polish cases, the Court found that a prosecutor did not offer the necessary guarantees because the prosecution authorities not only belonged to the executive branch of the State but also concurrently performed investigative and prosecution functions in criminal proceedings and were a party to them. It therefore concluded that the applicant’s right to be brought “before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” was not respected and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Notwithstanding the fact that the Court had found the applicant’s detention had been unlawful, the Court noted that the applicant was detained in accordance with domestic law and that he had therefore no right to compensation. The Court accordingly found, unanimously, that there had also been a breach of Article 5 § 5.   The Court held by five votes to two that those findings of violations constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Drabek v. Poland (no. 5270/04) Pasiński v. Poland (no. 6356/04)    Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Grzegorz Drabek and Dariusz Pasiński are both polish nationals born respectively in 1963 and 1968 and detained respectively in Lublin prison (Poland) and in Koszalin prison (Poland).   On different dates in June 2001 the Opole District Court detained the applicants on suspicion of having committed armed robbery as members of an organised crime ring. In July 2004 both applicants were found guilty as charged and given prison sentences.   The applicants were unsuccessful in their numerous applications for release and appeals against the decisions prolonging their detention. In those decisions the authorities relied not only on the existence of reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed the offences with which they had been charged and but also the risk that they might interfere with the conduct of the proceedings, since they had been accused of being involved in organised crime. They also relied heavily on the severity of the sentence that could be expected and on the complexity of the case.   The applicants complained in particular about the length of their detention on remand. They relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court found that with the passage of time, the authorities’ grounds for pre-trial detention became less and less relevant and could not justify holding either applicant in detention for over three years. Even taking into account the particular difficulty in dealing with cases concerning organised crime, the Court concluded that the domestic courts should have relied on other “relevant” and “sufficient” grounds to justify depriving the applicants of their liberty for such a long time.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in both cases. It awarded the applicant in the Drabek case EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage but in the Pasiński case it found that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The Court awarded the applicants EUR   100 for costs and expenses in both cases. (The judgments are only available in English.)   Babylonová v. Slovakia (no. 69146/01)    Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Katarína Babylonová, is a Slovakian national born in 1951 living in Nové Zámky (Slovakia).   In August 1995 the applicant and her husband bought a house. Despite his various attempts to have his residence status removed from the official register, Mr D., the former owner of the property, continued to be registered as permanently resident at the house.   Registration of permanent residences was governed by the 1982 Registration of Citizens’ Residence Act in conjunction with the Regulation on Enforcement of the Registration of Citizens’ Residence Act. Under the terms of the Act, as Mr D. had become homeless and had not applied for registration of a new permanent residence, there was no legal authority under the existing legislation to cancel his previous registration at the applicant’s home address.   The applicant submitted that official mail was being sent to the house for Mr D., and that the police had once come to her home looking for him, which she maintained had implications for her reputation among her neighbours. She had also been repeatedly obliged to explain the situation in various official contexts, such as in her claims for housing benefit and fees she was charged for the removal of household waste.   The applicant complained in particular that the impossibility for her to obtain cancellation of Mr D.’s registration as permanently resident in her house disturbed her private life and violated her property rights. She relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found that the impact on the applicant’s Article 8 rights, resulting from the fact that D. could not secure his deregistration, was sufficiently serious to amount to an interference with her right to respect for private life and home. It further found that that interference derived directly from the provisions of the 1982 Act, which only permitted a former resident of a house to remove his or her name from the register where that person had established a new permanent residence elsewhere, which in the present case Mr D. was unable to do. The Court found therefore that there had been a failure in the domestic legal system to secure the applicant’s rights to respect for her private life and home and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   In view of that finding, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately whether there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and awarded the applicant EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Havva Dudu Esen v. Turkey (no. 45626/99) No violation of Article 2 (effective investigation) The applicant, Havva Dudu Esen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Bolu (Turkey).   During the night of 9 to 10 October 1994 the applicant’s father, Tahir Esen, was killed in the village of Nadas (Kıbrısçık/Bolu), near a reservoir 100 metres from his home as he was digging out a channel. The following day the public prosecutor and members of the gendarmerie went to the scene to make initial inquiries and obtain statements from the villagers. An autopsy established that the deceased had been hit by approximately 127 lead pellets and had died of internal bleeding.   Following a ballistics test, one of the deceased’s neighbours was charged with involuntary homicide. He was acquitted for lack of evidence in July 1995.   In 1997 a new prosecutor reopened the file and heard evidence from some 10 witnesses. Following a fresh ballistic test, it turned out that the powder found on the scene of the crime had come from a calibre 12 gauge cartridge, contrary to what had been indicated in the first ballistic report. The public prosecutor therefore summoned all the villagers possessing calibre 12 gauge hunting rifles for questioning, issued search warrants in respect of three of houses and ordered the seizure of two rifles and their ammunition. Another neighbour was charged, but in September 1997 he, too, was acquitted for lack of evidence.   The applicant complained under Article 2 (right to life) that the investigation into her father’s death had been ineffective.   The Court noted that the authorities had reacted to the murder on the day after the incident and had taken a whole series of measures and initiated investigations. In the light of the circumstances of the case, it could not be said that the competent authorities had failed to take action to determine the circumstances in which the applicant’s father had been killed.   As to the error in the first ballistic report, the Court could not conclude that it had affected the determination of criminal liability. In these circumstances, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Örs and Others v. Turkey (no. 46213/99) Violation of Article 5 § 3    Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) The seven applicants, Saime Örs, Sevim Aktaş, Behzat Örs, Hakan Eyi, Nevzat Çiftçi, Kadri Teymur and Hüseyin Arslan are all Turkish nationals.   All the applicants apart from Saime Örs were arrested on 13 May 1996 and taken into police custody in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation known as “Ekim”. Saime Örs was arrested the following day. Under police interrogation Saime Örs, Sevim Aktaş and Nevzat Çiftçi made statements admitting membership of the organisation. They later claimed that their confessions had been extracted under torture.   On 24 May 1996, the day their period in police custody ended, the applicants were examined by a forensic doctor, who found that Nevzat Çiftçi, Kadri Teymur, Hakan Eyi and Sevim Aktaş had bruising to the body and pain in the arms, Behzat Örs a two centimetre long and one cm deep cut to the testicles and Saime Örs pain in the arms. The applicants were brought before a judge who ordered their detention pending trial.   Following a complaint by Hakan Eyi, criminal proceedings were instituted against the police officers on duty while the applicants were in police custody on the grounds of ill-treatment. The proceedings were extinguished under the statute of limitations in June 2003.   On 10 March 1997 Nevzat Çiftçi and Nevzat Çiftçi were found guilty of leading an armed gang and were convicted to terms of seven and six years’ imprisonment respectively. Kadri Teymur was found guilty of membership of an illegal armed organisation and received a three-year sentence. Saime Örs and Sevim Aktaş were found guilty of aiding and abetting an armed organisation and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment. Hakan Eyi and Hüseyin Arslan were acquitted. The state security court reduced Kadri Teymur’s sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment after the case had been remitted to it following an appeal on points of law.   Relying, inter alia , on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained among other things of the length of time they had been held in police custody and of procedural unfairness.   The Court noted that the applicants had been held in police custody for 10 or 11 days. It did not accept that it had been necessary to hold them for so long without bringing them before a judge and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court was struck by the fact that, despite the strong presumption that members of the security services were responsible for the alleged ill-treatment and the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against them, the state security court had nonetheless admitted the confessions and statements allegedly extracted under torture in evidence for the prosecution, even though under Turkish law it was not possible for inferences unfavourable to the defence to be drawn from such evidence.   The Court considered that, owing to the absence of a lawyer and the breach of the privilege against self-incrimination, the procedural guarantees available in the case before it had not prevented confessions allegedly obtained under torture from being used. Since the Court of Cassation had failed to remedy those defects, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) as regards Saime Örs, Sevim Aktaş, Kadri Teymur and Behzat Örs.   It awarded each of the applicants and Hanım Çiftçi, Nevzat Çiftçi’s widow, who had pursued the proceedings on his behalf, EUR 3,500 for non-pecuniary damage. It also made a joint award of EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.(The judgment is available only in French.)   Tan and Others v. Turkey (no. 42577/98)    No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The five applicants, Mustafa Nail Tan, Hüseyin Kılıçarslan, Salim Ateş, İsmet Şen and Hüseyin Yürekli, are all Turkish nationals, who were born respectively in 1933, 1944, 1957 and 1941. At the material time, they worked for the Agricultural Bank of the Republic of Turkey.   On 12 January 1990 they were charged with abuse of authority and corruption. On 10   December 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld their convictions and prison sentences for misappropriation.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial with a reasonable time) of, inter alia , the length of the criminal proceedings.   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted seven years and 11 months for six levels of jurisdiction. Assessing the length of the proceedings as a whole, and taking into account in particular the complexity of the case and the applicants’ conduct, it found that in the very special circumstances of the case the length of the proceedings had not been unreasonable. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Vayiç v. Turkey (no. 18078/02) Violation of Article 5 § 3    Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, İsrafil Vayiç, is a Turkish national born in 1963 who lived in Istanbul at the material time.   On 9 September 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. He was subsequently detained pending trial.   Istanbul State Security Court dismissed the applicant lawyer’s applications for release and repeatedly ordered the applicant’s continued detention having regard to “the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence”. It later relied on the seriousness of the charges against him and the risk that he might abscond. The applicant was eventually released on pending trial on 19 October 2001   On 31 January 2003, after some thirty hearings, the State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation later quashed that decision and the case was remitted to the Istanbul Assize Court.     The proceedings resumed on 2 September 2004 and several warrants were issued for the applicant’s arrest as he did not respond to summonses issued by the court. The proceedings are still pending.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention pending trial and the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Articles 5 § 3 (liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court found that the reasons given by the Istanbul State Security Court were, in part, expressed in identical, stereotyped terms and, taken alone, could not justify holding the applicant in detention for over five years. In addition, the Court noted that there was lack of special diligence on the part of the authorities which further delayed the criminal proceedings. In the light of those considerations, the Court held unanimously that that the length of the applicant’s detention pending trial violated Article 5 § 3.   When calculating the length of proceedings, the Court recalled that when an accused person fled from a State which respected the principle of the rule of law, it might be assumed that he or she was not entitled to complain of the unreasonable duration of the proceedings following that flight, unless sufficient reason could be shown to rebut that assumption. Since no such reasons have been adduced, the relevant period had to be regarded as having ended on 19 October 2001, the day of the applicant’s release pending trial.   The Court therefore noted that the period of the proceedings to be taken into account lasted over five years and one month. 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 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English.)   Yaşaroğlu v. Turkey (no. 45900/99)    No violation of Article 2 The applicant, Fatma Yaşaroğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul. Her husband, Erkan Yaşaroğlu, was accidentally killed in August 1990 by a police officer who was trying to arrest him.   At 11 a.m. on 11 August 1990 the police went to Mr Yaşaroğlu’s home. He was suspected of burglary of his employer’s shop. After initially denying that he was the person the police were looking for, he tried to escape. According to the police report, despite verbal warnings and four warning shots that were fired by the two police officers who gave chase, he continued to run away. After some two kilometres, as the men were crossing a field, one of the officers tripped over causing his gun to discharge fatally wounding Mr Yaşaroğlu, who was approximately 30 metres away.   A criminal investigation was launched immediately. Statements were taken, an autopsy was performed on the body and ballistic experts were instructed to determine the number of shots that had been fired, the range at which they had been fired, and the probability of their having being fired accidentally. At the end of the investigation, the police officer concerned was charged with voluntary homicide and detained pending trial.   On 24 May 1995 the Assize Court found that the police officer had no case to answer, as the forensic report did not exclude the possibility that the weapon had discharged when he fell to the ground, there was no evidence to refute that defence and, in particular, that he had been acting in the course of his duties as a police officer. On 30 October 1997 the administrative court ordered the Ministry of the Interior to pay the applicant compensation for the death of her husband at the hands of a police officer.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of the death of her husband, whom she alleged had been deliberately killed during the police chase, and of the failings of the investigation into his death.   The Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Article 2 admissible and her complaints under Articles 13 and 6 § 1 inadmissible.   It noted that there was no evidence to suggest “beyond all reasonable doubt” that the applicant’s husband had been intentionally killed or that his death had taken place in circumstances that were liable to engage Turkey’s responsibility. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 on account of Mr Yaşaroğlu’s death.   With regard to the investigation into his death, the Court observed that the authorities had conducted a judicial investigation that satisfied the requirements of Article 2 and that the applicant, who had been represented by a lawyer, had been able to play an active part in the proceedings in the Assize Court as an intervening party. Nor had she complained of any failings in the investigation at any stage of the proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 on account of the investigation into Mr Yaşaroğlu’s death.   Elahi v. United Kingdom (no. 30034/04)    Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Ashiq Hussain Elahi, is a British national born in 1967 and at the time of lodging his application with the Court, was serving a sentence of imprisonment in HM   Prison Ranby, (United Kingdom).   In July 1996, in accordance with Home Office Guidelines, the Chief Constable authorised the use of a covert listening device in the applicant’s house as he was suspected of being the head of a group of Asian drug traffickers in Bradford. Two days later the applicant was arrested and a warrant was obtained to search his house. During the search the police covertly installed listening and recording equipment inside his house. Recordings were made between 19 July and 21 November 1996 which were later used in evidence against him. The Chief Constable’s authorisation had been obtained for the entire period, except 16 August and 6 September, when the authorisation had lapsed and not been renewed, due to an oversight.   The applicant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to import and supply Class A drugs. He unsuccessfully applied to have the recordings excluded from evidence. Shortly afterwards he absconded and he was convicted in his absence and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.   Some years later he was re-arrested and appealed against conviction, arguing that the covertly obtained recordings should not have been used at trial. His application was rejected.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life), the applicant complained, in particular, about the use of covert listening devices to obtain material which was subsequently relied on by the prosecution.   The Government accepted that there had been a violation of Article 8 insofar as the Home Office Guidelines at the relevant time were not legally binding or publicly accessible. In light that admission, and with reference to the Court’s previous case-law, the Court held unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 in that the tape recordings from the covert listening equipment used in evidence against the applicant were not obtained “in accordance with the law”.   The applicant was awarded EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Joye v. France (no. 5949/02)    Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Jacques Joye, is a French national who was born in 1948 and lives in Morainvilliers (France). He issued proceedings for a declaration that he had been dismissed without genuine or good cause. In a judgment of 5 June 2001, the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on points of law.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of procedural unfairness in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, saying that he had not been summoned to the hearing and that the reporting judge’s report and the submissions of the Advocate-General had not been communicated to him.   The Court reiterated that a failure to communicate the reporting judge’s report to the appellant before the hearing when that document had been provided to the Advocate-General and the fact that the appellant was unable to reply to the Advocate-General's submissions was not reconcilable with the requirements of a fair hearing. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In view of that finding, it decided that no separate examination of the applicant’s further complaint that he had not been summoned to the hearing was necessary and dismissed the claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Malquarti v. France (no. 39269/02) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)    Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Syndicat National des Professionnels des Procédures Collectives v. France (no. 70387/01) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Malquarti The applicant, Vincent Malquarti, is a French national and cardiologist who was born in 1951 and lives in Lyons (France). He was prosecuted for fraud and barred from practising medicine following disciplinary proceedings. On 29 April 2002 the Conseil d’État upheld the decision of the disciplinary board.   Syndicat National des Professionnels des Procédures Collectives The applicant is a union, the Syndicat National des Professionnels des Procédures Collectives . It made two applications to the Conseil d’État for judicial review of decisions by the Minister of Justice to amend the rules governing judicial administrators and the liquidation of undertakings. The Conseil d’État dismissed its applications on 27 October 2000.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained of procedural unfairness in the proceedings before the Conseil d’État , in particular on account of the fact that the Government Commissioner had attended the deliberations of the bench that was to decide the appeal. Mr Malquarti further complained of the length of the disciplinary proceedings.   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the Government Commissioner’s presence at the Conseil d’État ’s deliberations.   In the case of Malquarti , it also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unreasonable length of the administrative proceedings that had taken eight years for three levels of jurisdiction.   As regards just satisfaction, the Court awarded Mr Malquarti EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. It held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the Syndicat National des Professionnels des Procédures Collectives and awarded it EUR 500 for costs and expenses..(The judgments are available only in French.)   Mehmet Küçük v. Turkey (no. 75728/01    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicant, Mehmet Küçük, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Antakya (Turkey). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained of delays in the payment of supplementary compensation for expropriation.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and decided that no separate examination of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 was necessary. It held 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 6,957 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).     Obluk v. Slovakia (no. 69484/01) Teréni v. Slovakia (no. 77720/01)    Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   ***   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.