CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 septembre 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 } .s146D2459 { width:312.91pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s3990E2C2 { width:60.8pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FA5A0EE { width:92.14pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s16991825 { width:31.5pt; display:inline-block } .sA4F030BC { width:58.17pt; display:inline-block } .s70540E72 { width:46.81pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sE3829386 { width:218.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sF7CAFED { width:258.22pt; display:inline-block } .s9A04250C { width:103.46pt; display:inline-block } .s3D51B655 { width:126.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s441AA4CB { width:168.13pt; display:inline-block } .sBF339177 { width:227.55pt; display:inline-block } .s89C05F2D { width:84.8pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; 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   523 21.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Romania, Russia, Switzerland, and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 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.   Violation of Article 8   No violation of Article 14 Moser v. Austria (application no. 12643/02) Three violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Zlatica Moser and her son, Luca Moser, are Serbian nationals. Ms Moser was born in 1973 and has been living in Austria since 1991. In December 1999 she married an Austrian citizen. On 8 June 2000 she gave birth to Luca in a hospital in Vienna. Her husband contested the paternity of the child.   The day after the birth, the Vienna Youth Welfare Office ordered that Ms Moser should not be able to take the baby with her from the hospital because she could not provide suitable accommodation for her son and given her inadequate financial means and unclear residence status. (In   August 1999 the Vienna Federal Police Authority had issued a five-year residence prohibition against her since she had been working illegally.) On 16 June 2000 Luca was placed with foster parents.   On 3 December 2000 the Juvenile Court granted custody of the child to the Youth Welfare Office. In its decision the court referred to information given by Ms Moser on 2 August 2000. The court also relied on reports carried out by the Youth Welfare Office and the Juvenile Court Assistance Office.   Ms Moser appealed complaining that neither the Juvenile Court itself nor the other authorities involved in her case had made any effort to help her regulate her residence status or to help her maintain contact with her child. Her appeal was dismissed.   She appealed again on points of law. She complained that, among other things, she had not been sufficiently involved in the proceedings and that she had had no access to the court files. She asserted that the authorities involved had not suggested alternative measures, such as placing her in a mother-child centre. Furthermore, she complained that there were no public and oral hearings in the custody proceedings and that the decisions were not pronounced publicly. Her appeal was rejected in August 2001.   Ms Moser currently has access rights to see Luca for two hours a month, on their birthdays and at Christmas. The residence prohibition on her was lifted in November 2004 and she has been granted a residence permit for a limited duration.   The applicants complained about the transfer of custody of Luca to the Youth Welfare Office, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, the applicants complained of discrimination on account of their nationality. The Ms Moser further alleged violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the courts failed to explore possibilities which would have allowed the applicants to remain together or stay in close contact while the proceedings were pending. The Court considered that the fact that Ms Moser had only twice been able to see her son in the six months between his birth and the decision transferring custody to the Youth Welfare Office, was particularly serious, given that they had not had a chance to bond, since Luca had been removed immediately after his birth.   The Court also considered that Ms Moser was not sufficiently involved in the decision-making process in that she was only heard once by the Juvenile Court and that the court relied on reports which had not been served on the applicant and on which she had had no possibility to comment. The Court also observed that the appeal proceedings were conducted without holding any hearing. It therefore concluded that the reasons relied on by the domestic courts were not sufficient to justify such a serious interference with the applicants’ family life and were not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 as regards the transfer of custody of Luca to the Youth Welfare Office.   The Court noted that the 1990 Vienna Youth Welfare Act did not make any distinction on the basis of nationality and that there was no indication in the file that the failure to examine the possibility of a placement in a mother-child centre was based on the applicants’ status as foreigners. Consequently, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 14.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been three violations of Article 6 § 1. These were due to the failure to give Ms Moser an opportunity to comment on the reports of the Youth Welfare Office and the Juvenile Court Assistance Office, the failure to hold a public hearing and the failure to pronounce publicly the judgments in the proceedings.   The Court awarded Ms Moser 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,694.74 for costs and expenses. It held that the finding of a violation of Article 8 constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage Luca might have suffered. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 2 Pandy v. Belgium (no. 13583/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Andras Pandy, is a Belgian and Hungarian national who was born in 1927. He is currently serving a life sentence in Louvain Prison (Belgium), which he received in 2002 for the murder of his two wives and four of his children and for the rape and sexual assault of several of his daughters.   The applicant, who was suspected of involvement in the disappearance of six members of his family, was charged with murder in October 1997. A warrant for his arrest was issued by B., an investigating judge at the Brussels Court of First Instance. Throughout the investigation the applicant denied any involvement in the matter and compared his situation to that of Captain Dreyfus.   At the end of the investigation Judge B. made an order transmitting the file to the public prosecutor’s office for further action. On 24 August 2000, at a hearing before the chambre du conseil of the Brussels Court of First Instance on the issue of extending the applicant’s detention pending trial, the investigating judge stated in his oral report that rather than comparing himself to Dreyfus, the applicant should have had the serial killers Landru or Dr Petiot in mind. The comparison was reported in the Belgian press.   The applicant unsuccessfully sought an order for Judge B. to stand down and complained in the Brussels Assize Court that there had been a breach of the presumption of innocence and of his right to a fair trial. On 6 March 2002 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed on points of law but without success.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 2 (presumption of innocence), the applicant complained that the proceedings in which he had been convicted had been unfair and alleged that by comparing him to Landru or Dr Petiot, the investigating judge dealing with his case had infringed the presumption of innocence.   The Court considered that the comments in question called for criticism from the point of view of presumption of innocence in that they had bracketed the applicant together with well-known and acknowledged serial killers. Regardless of whether the comments had been made in response to provocation by the applicant, they were unacceptable from an investigating judge, who was responsible for collecting both incriminating and exonerating evidence. In the Court’s opinion, such comments could be said in the circumstances of the case to amount to a declaration of the applicant’s guilt which had both encouraged the public to believe him guilty and had prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2.   The Court further considered that the applicant’s conviction had been based on an assessment of all the charges preferred and the evidence obtained during the investigation and discussed at the hearings in the Assize Court. His guilt had therefore been lawfully established and the proceedings viewed as a whole had been fair. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court considered that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dalidis v. Greece (no. 26763/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Andreas Dalidis, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1956. He is currently serving a sentence in Tripoli Prison (Greece).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in January 2001 on a complaint alleging rape and abduction of a minor.   The Court observed that the proceedings had so far lasted five years and five months for two levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Maszni v. Romania (no. 59892/00)   No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 The applicant, Marcel Maszni, is a Romanian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Suceava (Romania).   Having been disqualified from driving, the applicant was stopped while driving his vehicle in possession of a forged driving licence in June 1997. The police officer suspected of having produced the forged document and the applicant were both tried by Iaşi Military Court – the police officer because he was treated as equivalent to a member of the armed forces and the applicant because the offences of which he was accused were closely related to the charges against the police officer.   On 31 August 1998 the applicant was found guilty of offences including incitement to forgery and making use of forged documents, and was given a suspended sentence of one year and four months’ imprisonment. That decision was upheld on appeal.   At the end of the period during which the applicant was disqualified from driving, the police returned his driving licence to him. However, in September 1999 the chief of the county police revoked the licence on the ground that the applicant had been convicted with final effect of a road traffic offence. In April 2002 the applicant passed the test entitling him to a new driving licence.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that he had not had a fair trial. He further alleged, relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), that the revocation of his driving licence had amounted to a second penalty for the same acts that had resulted in his criminal conviction by the military courts for a road traffic offence.   The Court noted that certain features of the status of military judges might cast doubt on their independence and impartiality: they were regular officers in the armed forces, paid by the Ministry of Defence and subject to military discipline, and their promotion was governed by internal army regulations. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant’s doubts about the independence and impartiality of the military courts could be regarded as objectively justified and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Furthermore, the close connection between the two penalties imposed on the applicant led the Court to conclude that the revocation of his driving licence appeared to be a penalty accompanying and forming an integral part of the criminal conviction. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   McHugo v. Switzerland (no. 55705/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Brian McHugo, is a British national who was born in 1928 and lives in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence (France).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of criminal proceedings instituted against him for financial offences of which he was eventually acquitted in December 1998.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted more than 11 years. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Mehmet Güneş v. Turkey (no. 61908/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Mehmet Güneş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Turkey.   In July 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of possessing a false identity card and of being a member of an illegal organisation in Turkey, the TDP (Revolutionary Party of Turkey). He was later detained on remand until January 2000. Istanbul State Security Court dismissed all of the applicant’s requests for release pending trial referring each time to “the state of the evidence”. The criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued in February 2004.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand and the proceedings against him, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted a lack of sufficient reasoning in the domestic court’s decisions to prolong the applicant’s remand in custody. It found that the identical stereotyped reasons given could not justify keeping the applicant in detention on remand for over six years and six months 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 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.   The applicant was awarded EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment)   Violation of Article 13   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Söylemez v. Turkey (no. 46661/99)   No violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicants, Faysal Söylemez, Sena Söylemez and Mustafa Söylemez, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1964, 1961 and 1966 respectively and live in Muş (Turkey).   All three applicants were arrested and taken into police custody in June 1996 on suspicion of murder, wounding and false imprisonment. Faysal and Sena Söylemez were arrested on 11 June 1996 following an armed clash in which two police officers and Sena Söylemez were injured. Mustafa Söylemez was arrested the next day.   On 26 June 1996 Mustafa Söylemez was examined by a doctor who found no signs of blows to his body. Later that day Mustafa and Sena Söylemez were brought before a judge, who ordered their detention pending trial.   While he was in police custody Faysal Söylemez was examined by a doctor on 12 and 25 June 1996; neither of   the medical reports drawn up on those occasions made any mention of signs of blows or assault to his body. He was placed in pre-trial detention and examined on 27 June 1996 by the prison doctor, who observed that he had two old bruises, one measuring 1 cm x 1 cm on his left arm and one of 2 cm x 1 cm on the right side of the chest. Two further medical reports concerning Faysal Söylemez, issued on 18 October and 5 November 1996, noted the presence of hyperpigmentation linked to an old bruise measuring 1   cm x   1   cm in the right-hand pectoral region, and of numbness in both arms and both hands.   The applicants were charged with murder, illegally possessing firearms and using forged identity papers and registration plates. On 17 December 1997 Kadıköy Assize Court sentenced Mustafa and Sena Söylemez each to 30 years’ imprisonment and Faysal Söylemez to 20 years. The Court of Cassation upheld the convictions and sentences.   On 28 December 1998, in a separate murder case, Ankara Assize Court sentenced Mustafa Söylemez to 18 years and four months’ imprisonment and Sena and Faysal Söylemez to 18 years’ imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Cassation likewise upheld those convictions and sentences.   In the meantime, Faysal Söylemez had lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers in whose custody he had been held, alleging ill-treatment. On 26 January 1998 Istanbul Assize Court acquitted the officers on the ground that there was insufficient “compelling and decisive” evidence.   The applicants alleged that they had been ill-treated while in police custody and had not had an effective remedy in respect of their complaints on that account. They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). They further complained under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) that they had not had a fair trial.   The Court found that it could not establish from the evidence submitted to it by Sena and Mustafa Söylemez that they had been ill-treated while in police custody. It further held that it had not been proved that the force used during their arrest had been excessive or disproportionate. It therefore declared the complaints submitted by Sena and Mustafa Söylemez under Article 3 inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.   However, in the light of all the evidence before it concerning Faysal Söylemez and the absence of a plausible explanation from the Turkish Government as to the marks found on his body, the Court considered that the injuries observed in his case had resulted from treatment that could be qualified as inhuman. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of Faysal Söylemez. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 in his case, but declared the corresponding complaint inadmissible in the cases of Sena and Mustafa Söylemez.   As regards the fairness of the proceedings in which the applicants had been convicted, the Court observed that the statement obtained from Faysal Söylemez under duress while in police custody had been one of the items of evidence that had formed the basis for his conviction. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3. In the case of the other two applicants, an overall examination of the proceedings led the Court to conclude that they had not been denied a fair trial. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 in their case.   Lastly, the Court considered that the applicants had not adduced any evidence to substantiate their allegation that the presumption of innocence had not been observed. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 2.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded Faysal Söylemez EUR 8,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Grabchuk v. Ukraine (no. 8599/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicant, Mariya Mykhaylivna Grabchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Liski (Ukraine).   In 1993-1994 the applicant worked as a director of a state-owned café in the town of Volodymyr-Volynskyy (Ukraine). In June 1995 she was arrested and charged with stealing State property. The offence was later reclassified as negligence.   The criminal proceedings were eventually discontinued, partly for lack of evidence and partly on the ground that prosecution for the offence of negligence was time-barred. (The applicant objected to the termination of the criminal proceedings and a series of decisions and appeals ensued). In the decisions to discontinue the proceedings it was explicitly stated by an investigator and by the Volodymyr-Volynskyy Court that the applicant had, in fact, committed the offences with which she had been charged.   The applicant complained that she was found guilty without being tried according to law. She also complained that she had been unable to challenge the courts’ failure to examine the criminal charges against her. She relied on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted in particular that the domestic courts’ decisions to discontinue the criminal proceedings were couched in terms which left no doubt as to their view that the applicant had committed the offence which constituted an infringement of the presumption of innocence.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 and awarded Ms Grabchuk EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (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.   GECO, a.s. v. the Czech Republic (no. 4401/03) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, GECO a.s., is a Czech public limited company.   It applied to the Czech courts to order another company to pay it a sum of money. In the course of the proceedings it appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court. On 11 June 2002 the Supreme Court declared the applicant company’s appeal inadmissible on the ground that it did not concern a decision of crucial legal importance. In addition, on 5 December 2002 a constitutional appeal by the company was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court as being out of time. Citing its own case-law, the Constitutional Court held that, as the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal on points of law, the time allowed for lodging a constitutional appeal had started to run on the date on which the appellate court had adopted its decision and not on the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment.   The applicant company complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that it had been denied access to a court by the Constitutional Court’s decision to dismiss its appeal as being out of time.   The Court noted that under the provisions of the Constitutional Court Act, the applicant company was under an obligation to appeal to the Supreme Court in order to exhaust the remedies provided by the law. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the time allowed for an appeal to the Constitutional Court should have started to run from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision, or should at least have stopped running once the appeal to the Supreme Court had been lodged.   The Court found that the Constitutional Court’s particularly strict interpretation of the relevant procedural rule had deprived the applicant company of the right of access to a court and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation provided in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company and awarded it EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Croci and Others v. Italy (no. 14828/02) Dedda and Fragassi v. Italy (no. 19403/03) Maria Andreina Croci, Giovanna Croci, Mauro Croci, Roberto Croci and Giorgio Croci are Italian nationals who were born in 1917, 1938, 1941, 1949 and 1936 respectively and live in Rome. Maria Dedda and Leonardo Fragassi are also Italian nationals and live in L’Aquila (Italy).   In both cases the applicants owned land which was occupied by the authorities with a view to its expropriation and on which building work was begun. In the absence of formal expropriation and compensation, the applicants brought proceedings seeking damages for the unlawful occupation of their land.   The applicants submitted that the circumstances in which they had been deprived of their possessions were incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicants in Dedda and Fragassi v. Italy also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court considered that the applicants’ loss of all ability to dispose of the land, coupled with the lack of a remedy, amounted to a de facto expropriation that was incompatible with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1 in the case of Dedda and Fragassi .   The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and accordingly reserved it. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Gasser v. Italy (no. 10481/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Waltraud Gasser, is an Italian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Bolzano (Italy). She was declared bankrupt in May 1982.   The applicant alleged that, as a result of the bankruptcy order, she had been deprived of her possessions, that correspondence sent to her had been given to the trustee in bankruptcy and that she had been unable to leave her place of residence. In addition, she complained of the length of the bankruptcy proceedings and of the lack of an effective remedy under Italian law in respect of the length of the period during which she had been subject to certain disabilities as a result of being made bankrupt. She relied on Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), 8 (right to respect for correspondence), 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the length of the bankruptcy proceedings, approximately 19 years and two months, had upset the fair balance that should have been struck between the general interest in repaying the creditors and the applicant’s individual interests, namely the right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, respect for her correspondence and her freedom of movement. The interference with her rights and freedoms had been disproportionate to the aim pursued. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 8 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 30,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Borshchevskiy v. Russia (no. 14853/03) Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Aleksandr Pavlovich Borshchevskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives in the Moscow Region.   The applicant had been awarded compensation for damages he sustained while working at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. In a judgment dated 5 April 2002 it was established that from 2   March 1996 the Stupino Pensions Department should have paid compensation to the applicant instead of his former employer. Since the Department did comply with that judgment, on 14 October 2002 the Korenovskiy District Court ordered that it pay the applicant, at the expense of the Treasury, the amounts outstanding. Due to lack of State funds, the judgments were not enforced.   On 22 July 2004 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 5 April 2002, by way of supervisory review. The supervisory review proceedings were instituted under the new Code of Civil Procedure.   The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of both judgments due to lack of State funds the quashing of one of the judgments. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court observed that the judgment of 5 April 2002 had been set aside for a long time – 25 months – after it had become binding and enforceable. The Court noted that that situation could have been avoided had the Department availed itself of the opportunity to lodge an ordinary appeal. The Court found that by granting the Department’s request to set aside the judgment of 5 April 2002, the Presidium of the Regional Court infringed the applicant’s “right to a court” and deprived him of an opportunity to receive the money he had legitimately expected to receive. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court also found a separate violation of the same provisions as regards non-enforcement of the judicial decisions in the applicant’s favour during the period when they had been validly enforceable under the domestic law.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 160,600 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Eroğlu v. Turkey (no. 59769/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Mesut Eroğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul.   On 26 August 1998 the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by Istanbul State Security Court for being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant submitted that his case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge among the members of the state security court that had tried and convicted him.   The Court reiterated that civilians standing trial for offences under the Criminal Code had legitimate reason to fear that a state security court which included a military judge among its members might not be independent and impartial. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 800   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   İhsan and Satun Önel v. Turkey (no. 9292/02) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, İhsan Önel and Satun Önel, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949 and 1948 respectively.   The applicants were awarded additional compensation after the General Directorate of the National Water Board expropriated two plots of land belonging to them, for the construction of a dam.   The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that the rate of interest for delays, payable on the additional compensation for expropriation, was too low and that the expropriating authority had further delayed in settling the relevant amounts.   The Court declared inadmissible the complaint filed by Satun Önel.   Concerning İhsan Önel’s complaint, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded him EUR 41,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Uglanova v. Russia (no. 3852/02) Araç v. Turkey (no. 69037/01)   ***   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.