CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 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 } .sC2560453 { width:4.11pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s9021AAF8 { width:56.16pt; display:inline-block } .s81039FA9 { width:88.81pt; display:inline-block } .s46235B3E { width:91.48pt; display:inline-block } .s626CA315 { width:160.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA623B55F { width:94.78pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s146D2459 { width:312.91pt; display:inline-block } .sF4075683 { width:48.1pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s24B4985E { width:80.78pt; display:inline-block } .s5328D82E { width:91.44pt; display:inline-block } .s2289AC0D { width:96.82pt; display:inline-block } .s447198FB { width:70.83pt; 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   376 27.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   One repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Mazelie v. France (application no. 5356/04)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Yves Mazelie, is a French national who was born in 1915 and lives in La Ferté-Milon (France).   In 1966 the applicant purchased a 35-are property in La Ferté-Milon on the site of a former baronial castle. The land, on which he built a house in 1967, was situated on a plateau enclosed by ramparts, themselves encircled by a lower plateau whose features included a garden with a tower rising from a belvedere that could be reached by a monumental stairway.   In 1969 part of the ramparts collapsed, with the risk of damage being caused to property situated below. On 14 November 1969 the municipality of La Ferté-Milon, on the assumption that the applicant was the owner of the ramparts, served him with formal notice to carry out reinforcement work. He challenged the mayor’s decision and brought proceedings against the municipality seeking a decision that he was not the owner of the ramparts. On 27 February 1973 the municipality served third-party notice on the State.   While those proceedings were pending, the municipality undertook restoration work on the ramparts and took out a charge against the applicant’s property as security for the cost of the work. The applicant claimed that, as he was prevented from disposing of his property (the municipality’s charge was not discharged until 1990), he had been forced to take out a loan. He had thus allegedly become burdened with debt and desperate to the point of committing five armed robberies, for which he was sentenced in 1998 to five years’ imprisonment of which four were suspended.   In addition, in December 2000 a bank to which the applicant owed the equivalent of 17,500 euros (EUR) brought proceedings for execution against the property and it was sold by auction for about EUR 115,000. In 2003 it was estimated to be worth over EUR 380,000.   In the meantime, on 25 May 2000, Douai Administrative Appeal Court held that the ramparts at issue belonged to the State in so far as they were appurtenant and connected to the old castle of La Ferté-Milon, which had been listed on a 1926 schedule of State-owned properties as having been assigned since 1856 to the Ministry of Public Education and Fine Arts.   Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant argued that the manner in which he had been treated by the municipality of La Ferté-Milon and the State had interfered with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   The European Court of Human Rights found that during the litigation between the applicant and the authorities concerning the ownership of the ramparts, and because of the registration of a charge by the municipality, the applicant’s right of ownership had been burdened with an encumbrance which had significantly affected his full enjoyment of the property. There had thus been interference, stemming from the conduct of the municipality of La Ferté-Milon, with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   It was now clear, as the French courts had acknowledged, that the disputed ramparts were the property of the State and that the State was thus responsible for their maintenance. The Court was surprised that it had taken 30 years and several different sets of proceedings for a finding to be reached on a matter that appeared straightforward. It found it particularly difficult to understand why the State, which in 1973 had been served with third-party notice in proceedings that were precisely concerned with determining the ownership of the ramparts, had not reached that conclusion at an early stage. The Court considered that there had been serious administrative negligence resulting in significant harmful consequences for the applicant.   Since the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been based on a mistake of law that was entirely attributable to the authorities, the Court considered that it lacked a sufficient legal basis. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded Mr Mazelie EUR 25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 25,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kuvikas v. Lithuania (no. 21837/02) Simonavičius v. Lithuania (no. 37415/02) The applicants, Edvardas Kuvikas and Renatas Simonavičius, are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1966 and 1973 and live in Šiauliai and Naujoji Akmenė (Lithuania), respectively.   On 29 March 1993 Mr Kuvikas, a border policeman, was charged with bribery and fraud and remanded in custody. In February 2001 Akmenė District Court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and barred him from working in the civil service for one year. On 20 November 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal.   On 1 September 1999 a criminal investigation was opened into an alleged financial conspiracy involving Mr Simonavičius. On 29 June 2005 he was convicted by the Mažeikiai Area District Court. His appeal proceedings are still pending.   The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Taking into account that it had no competence to examine events which occurred prior to 20 June 1995, the date of the entry into force of the Convention with regard to Lithuania, the Court nevertheless noted that the proceedings in both cases had lasted over six years. Having regard to the circumstances of each 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 in both cases.   The Court awarded each applicant EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,375 to Mr Kuvikas and EUR   1,000 to Mr   Simonavičius for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Dzierżanowski v. Poland (no. 2983/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Bogdan Dzierżanowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Białystock (Poland).   On 25 June 1993, while the applicant was abroad and without his knowledge, he was charged with manslaughter. He was subsequently arrested by the police while crossing the Polish border and on 8 June 2001 he was found guilty and given a suspended sentence by Białstock District Court.   He complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings in the case had lasted almost eight years. 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. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Tabor v. Poland (no. 12825/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Józef Tabor, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Cracow (Poland).   On 4 December 1998 the applicant was awarded compensation for unlawful termination of his contract of employment by Katowice District Labour Court. Both parties unsuccessfully appealed against the judgment. On 17 January 2000 Katowice Regional Court dismissed his request for legal aid for the purpose of instituting the cassation proceedings. It did not give any reasons for its decision. On the same day it also rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal on the ground that it had not been lodged by a lawyer as required by law. He appealed against those decisions to the Supreme Court without success.   The applicant complained that the court’s refusal to grant him legal assistance infringed his right to a fair hearing. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). The Court considered that the principle of fairness required the regional court’s to give reasons for rejecting the applicant’s request to grant him legal assistance. Furthermore, the Court observed that the court’s decision was issued one month after the prescribed time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had expired. That left the applicant without any realistic opportunity of seeking legal assistance to lodge a cassation appeal, since professional legal representation was obligatory, and of bringing his case to the Supreme Court. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant’s request for legal aid was not handled with the required amount of diligence and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The applicant was awarded EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 685 (received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Petre v. Romania (no. 71649/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicants, Corneliu Petre and his son Mircea Bogdan Petre, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1975 respectively and live in Bucharest. They are both lawyers.   On 24 December 1996 Corneliu Petre was charged with fraud and uttering forgeries. He was accused of using a false promissory note, with the assistance of a civil servant, in order to transfer a large sum of money from the account of a local authority in Bucharest to his own personal account. On 7 January 1997 his son was charged with forging documents and aiding and abetting fraud. The proceedings are pending before the High Court of Justice.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained among other things of the length of the criminal proceedings against them.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted nine years and five months at three levels of jurisdiction. In the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bíro v. Slovakia (no. 57678/00)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Dušan Bíro, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava.   On 22 February 1999 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecution service charging two of his associates with fraud and other offences of a financial nature. At the same time he lodged a claim for damages resulting from those offences. In February 2005 he complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings. The court declared his complaint inadmissible arguing that aggrieved parties in criminal proceedings did not enjoy the right to have their claims for damages determined without unjustified delay. The proceedings are still pending.   He complained about the length of the proceedings relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court found that the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings in which he joined his claim for damages to his criminal complaint was compatible with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 and that, as a matter of principle, civil-party claims for damages made in Slovakia jointly with or subsequently to the lodging of a criminal complaint enjoyed the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 from the moment they were made.   The Court noted that the proceedings in the case had lasted more than seven years and three months. 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.   Having regard to the ruling of the Constitutional Court, the Court considered that there was a lack of a remedy under domestic law for a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The applicant was awarded EUR 4,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Çağırıcı v. Turkey (no. 74325/01)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Ömer Çağırıcı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Batman (Turkey).   On suspicion of involvement in propaganda activities for the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on 9 April 2001. On 17 April 2001 he was brought before a judge, who remanded him in custody pending trial.   The criminal proceedings brought against the applicant are still pending before the Turkish courts.   The applicant complained among other things about the length of time he had been held in police custody and the lack of a remedy by which he could have submitted such a complaint. He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that the applicant had been held in police custody for eight days. It could not accept that it had been necessary to detain him for such a long time before bringing him before a judge. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Moreover, in the absence of any cogent argument by the Turkish Government, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of a remedy in respect of the length of police custody.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)           No violation of Article 2 (death) Violation of Article 2 (effective investigation)   Violation of Article 13   No violation of Article 14 Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey (no. 41964/98) The applicants, Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962 and 1961 respectively and live in Ankara and Mardin (Turkey). They are the widow and brother respectively of Dr Mehmet   Emin Ayhan who was shot dead by unknown assailants.   Dr Ayhan lived in Mardin, a province heavily populated by Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin which was subject to emergency rule at the relevant time. He was also an outspoken advocate “for the recognition of the Kurdish identity and for the democratic rights and liberties of the Kurdish society” and had recently had a dispute with the Head of the Silvan Security Department.   On 10 June 1992 around 9.30 p.m., as Dr Ayhan was returning home with his wife he was approached by a man who had been sitting with two other men in a coffee house on the ground floor of their apartment building. The other two men suddenly took out rifles hidden under their raincoats and shot out the street lights. The third man, who was a few metres away, fired a handgun and shot Dr Ayhan through the neck. He died on the spot. The men then got into a car and drove away.   Members of the security forces arrived and officers from the Anti-Terror Department drew up a report at the scene of the incident. According to one of their reports, although there were many people present at the scene of the killing no one was able to testify as to what had happened. Dr Ayhan’s wife was unable to identify the perpetrators. An autopsy was later performed and forensic and ballistics reports were drawn up.   The ballistics examination established that the weapon used had belonged to a member of the Hizbullah. According to statements given by three members of that organisation (which were later retracted as having been obtained under duress) Dr Ayan had been killed by one of their associates, K.A., who was subsequently arrested. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending. He denies all charges.   The applicants alleged in particular that Dr Ayhan had been shot dead by State agents or with their connivance and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his killing. They relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court considered that the material in the case file did not enable it to conclude to the required standard of proof that Dr Ayhan was killed by or with the connivance of any State agent or person acting on behalf of the State authorities in the circumstances alleged by the applicants. It followed that there had been no violation of Article 2 on that account.   The Court noted there were serious shortcomings from the outset investigation into Dr Ayhan’s death. In particular it noted that the sketch made at the scene of the crime lacked precision and detail; customers in the café were not interviewed and no attempt was made to trace the getaway car. The Court considered that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing and held unanimously that there had been a violation of both Articles 2 and 13 in that respect.   The Court examined the applicants’ complaint that Dr Ayhan had been killed because of his Kurdish origin but found their allegations unsubstantiated. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14.   The Court awarded the applicants EUR 21,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   10,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 625.04 (received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe). (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 11 Çetinkaya v. Turkey (no. 75569/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Suat Çetinkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   As director of the branch office of the Izmir Human Rights Association, the applicant attended a press conference on 2 July 1999 entitled “Democracy, secularism and peace”. The conference was organised by the Democracy Platform (a civil group embracing various trade unions, associations and professional bodies) to mark the anniversary of the events that had occurred in Sivas on 2 July 1993 [3] . A declaration condemning in particular the inertia of the Turkish authorities in prosecuting and punishing those responsible for the Sivas events, signed by the various group members of the Platform, including the Human Rights Association, was read out at the conference.   On the same day police officers drew up an incident report in which the press conference, at which some 800 people had gathered, was described as an open-air assembly. The applicant and six members of the executive committee of the branch office were prosecuted for participating in an illegal assembly and thus acting in breach of the aims specified in the memorandum of association.   On 2 November 2000 the applicant was convicted of the offence charged and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, which was subsequently commuted to a fine. He unsuccessfully appealed on points of law.   The applicant submitted that his conviction for participating in a press conference had infringed his right to freedom of expression and interfered with the exercise of his associative activities in breach of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Relying on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he alleged that he had not had a fair trial on account of the way in which the evidence had been taken by the Turkish courts.   The Court considered that it should examine the complaints lodged under Articles 10 and 11 only under Article 11.   The Court noted that the applicant had been convicted in his capacity as director of an association, not for behaving violently or for chanting slogans in support of a terrorist organisation, but for taking part in a press conference which had de facto been labelled an illegal assembly by the authorities. He had been convicted just for being present at the conference without any consideration being given to whether it had been conducted peacefully or not.   In that connection the Court reiterated that sweeping measures of a preventive nature to suppress freedom of assembly and expression other than in cases of incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles did a disservice to democracy and often even endangered it. The legal framework that had served as a basis for the applicant’s conviction amounted to a general ban, restricting the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly within uncertain limits that depended on the national authorities’ assessment of the aims and the memorandum of association of the association in question. Such measures undeniably affected both freedom of association and democracy in the country concerned. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11.   Reiterating that the Convention did not lay down rules on the taking of evidence as such, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had not been a breach of Article   6.   Under the head of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant 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 10   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Deniz v. Turkey (no. 71355/01) The applicant, Hasan Deniz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Paris. He was the editor of the daily newspaper Özgür Bakış from 18 April to 9 June 1999.   On 1 June 1999 the Özgür Bakış published a report by Fikret Başkaya criticising the Turkish authorities with regard to the Kurdish problem at the time of Abdullah Öcalan’s trial. On the same day the newspaper was ordered to be seized and criminal proceedings were subsequently brought against the applicant for disseminating separatist propaganda through the medium of the press.   On 13 June 2000 Istanbul State Security Court sentenced the applicant to six months’ imprisonment and a fine and then commuted the prison sentence to a fine. Under Law no. 5680 it also banned publication of the newspaper for three days. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.   The applicant submitted, in particular, that his criminal conviction had infringed his freedom of expression and amounted to a breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, which, in his opinion, had resulted in his being unable to reply to the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion.   The Court considered that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Although certain passages of the articles painted a negative picture of the policy pursued by the Turkish State and gave the content a hostile tone, they did not constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising and did not amount to hate speech; that, in the Court’s view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court concluded that the applicant’s conviction had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and accordingly had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.   The Court also reiterated that, having regard to the nature of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s submissions and the impossibility for a defendant to reply to them in writing, the fact that they had not been communicated amounted to a breach of Article 6 § 1. It therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   As the applicant had not claimed just satisfaction, despite his attention having been drawn to that point, the Court considered that he should not be awarded a sum under that head. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 10 Saygılı and Seyman v. Turkey (no. 51041/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicants, Fevzi Saygılı and Tuncay Seyman, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1975 respectively and live in Istanbul. Mr Saygılı is the owner of the daily newspaper   Yeni Evrensel , and Mr Seyman is the editor.   On 4 January 1999 the governors of the state-of-emergency regions imposed a ban on the publication and distribution of the newspaper Yeni Evrensel in the provinces where the state of emergency was in force at the material time, namely, Diyarbakır, Hakkari, Siirt, Şırnak, Tunceli and Van, pursuant to Article 1 of Legislative Decree no. 430 and section 11(e) of the State of Emergency Act (Law no. 2935).   The applicants lodged an application for that decision to be set aside, which was dismissed by Diyarbakır Administrative Court. At the time when the case was brought before the Court, the publication and distribution of the Yeni Evrensel in the provinces in question were still banned, but authorised in the other provinces of the country.   The applicants complained of an unjustified interference with the exercise of their right to impart information or ideas as a result of the ban on publication and distribution of the newspaper Yeni Evrensel in the state-of-emergency region.   They relied on Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   The Court noted that the ban on publication and distribution of the Yeni Evrensel in the state-of-emergency region amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. That interference had been prescribed by law, namely, section 11(e) of the State of Emergency Act and Article 1 (a) of Legislative Decree no. 430, and had pursued the aims of defending public order and protecting national security.   As the courts had no power to review administrative bans, the applicants had been deprived of adequate safeguards against possible abuse. Accordingly, the interference caused by section 11(e) of the State of Emergency Act and Article 1 (a) of Legislative Decree no. 430, and the way in which those provisions had been applied in the instant case, could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society” and went beyond the requirements of the legitimate aim pursued.   It therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 10.     The Court also held that there had been a breach of Article   13 on account of the absence of a remedy under Turkish law before a national authority to challenge the measures taken against the applicants by the governor of the state-of-emergency region.   Lastly, having regard to its conclusion that there had been a breach of Article   10, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the complaint based on Article 14.   Under the head of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 2,500 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 10   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Yeşilgöz and Firik v. Turkey (no. 58459/00) The applicants, Selman Yeşilgöz and Ali Firik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962 and 1970 respectively and live in Istanbul.   Mr Yeşilgöz was the President of the Tunceli Cultural and Mutual Assistance Association ( Tunceli Kültür ve Dayanışma Derneği ) and Mr Firik was a member of the executive committee. At the general meeting of the association on 17 November 1996 a number of speeches were made criticising the policy pursued by the Turkish authorities with regard to the problems in the Tunceli region, where the members of the association come from.   A number of members of the executive committee, including the applicants, were prosecuted for making or allowing to be made political statements whose contents were contrary to the object of the association.   On 18 November 1998 the Fatih Criminal Court sentenced the applicants to one year’s imprisonment and a fine, and made an order dissolving the association. The applicants’ conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 28 April 2000 and the other defendants were acquitted.   On 18 December 2000 Mr Yeşilgöz was arrested in order to serve his sentence. After the entry into force of Law no. 4616 relating to parole, the adjournment of the trial and the execution of the sentences for the offences committed before 23   April 1999, his sentence was deferred and he was released on 25 December 2000. Mr   Firik’s sentence was also deferred under the same Law.   The applicants submitted, in particular, that their criminal conviction had infringed their freedom of expression and amounted to a breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, which, in their opinion, had resulted in their being unable to reply to the Principal Prosecutor’s opinion.   The Court considered that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. Although some of the remarks had been virulent, viewed as a whole, they did not incite to violence, hostility or hatred between citizens and did not aim at stirring up hatred or violence. The Court also noted that the applicants had not been convicted for the speeches they had made, but in their capacity as directors of the cultural association. In that connection it was important to point out that the actual authors of the speeches had been acquitted at the end of proceedings brought against them jointly with the applicants and that no other proceedings had been instituted against them. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 10.   The Court also reiterated that, having regard to the nature of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s submissions and the impossibility for a defendant to reply to them in writing, the fact that they had not been communicated amounted to a breach of Article 6 § 1. It therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   Under the head of just satisfaction, the Court awarded Mr   Yeşilgöz EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage and Mr   Firik EUR   6,500. It also awarded them EUR 2,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Sassi v. France (no. 19617/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Philippe Sassi, is a French national who was born in 1935 and lives in Cannes (France).   In September 2000 the applicant was found guilty of fraud and unlawful practice of the banking profession and was given a suspended four-year prison sentence. On 7 November 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeals on points of law.   The applicant complained that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair because he had not received a copy of the reporting judge’s report. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to communicate the reporting judge’s report to the applicant before the hearing when that document had been provided to the Advocate-General. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 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 administrative proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Nicolas v. France (no. 2021/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Bielec v. Poland (no. 40082/02)   Non-violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Gabay v. Turkey (no. 70829/01) Revision   Struck out   ***   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. [3]     On 2 July 1993 37 intellectuals, poets and artists perished in an arson attack on a hotel.