CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 décembre 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 } .s7BEE1C5B { width:118.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA09E0448 { width:70.82pt; display:inline-block } .sF5A11B0D { width:62.11pt; display:inline-block } .sCEA5E46A { width:100.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s66F218CF { width:115.47pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA98F46F1 { width:40.15pt; display:inline-block } .sDD0C86A { width:41.46pt; display:inline-block } .sFCFDFE46 { width:38.77pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sE717B9F { width:94.12pt; display:inline-block } .s83044F70 { width:278.23pt; display:inline-block } .sA772C7B0 { width:159.47pt; display:inline-block } .sEAA82B7E { width:26.77pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s8B8C0BAC { width:246.18pt; 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   755 5.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 26 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 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) Csikós v. Hungary (application no 37251/04) The applicant, István Csikós, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Budapest.   In October 2003, he was found guilty of aggravated extortion and sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment. He appealed.   In a closed session, in the absence of both the applicant and his lawyer, Heves County Regional Court upheld his conviction and increased his sentence to four years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained, in particular, that he had not had a fair trial, relying on Article 6 §§   1 and 3(c) and (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) concerning the appellate session held in the absence of the applicant, and awarded Mr Csikós 1,415 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. The Court declared the remainder of the complaint inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Lachowski v. Poland (no. 27556/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Ireneusz Lachowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Rejowiec Fabryczny (Poland).   He was arrested on 20 September 1999 and remanded in custody until 23 September 2002 when he was convicted by the Lublin Regional Court of homicide and armed robbery. That conviction was quashed on appeal on 22 October 2003 and his detention continued until he was released on 6 October 2005. The proceedings are still pending.   The applicant complained, in particular, about the length of his detention which lasted almost five years. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. Mr Lachowski was awarded EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Akagün v. Turkey (no. 71901/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Osman Akagün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Şanlıurfa (Turkey).   He owned land which, according to the Turkish Government, was expropriated by the Ministry of Defence in 1975, the relevant compensation being frozen in a bank account. At the Ministry’s request, the property was registered in the name of the Treasury in 1989 and the applicant’s title to the property was invalidated in a judgment which was delivered in his absence and published in the press by way of notification.   In 1998 the applicant brought an action seeking compensation for the expropriation of his property. The Turkish courts dismissed his action, holding that it was time-barred since the authorities had been in possession of the land for more than 20 years.   The applicant submitted that the authorities had deprived him of his property without paying him compensation and complained of the length (two years and four months) of the proceedings to which he had been a party. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and no violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 30,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Baştımar and Others v. Turkey (no. 74337/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Şemsettin Baştımar, Şükrü Demirtaş, Ali Şahindal, Kenan Aygören and Tekin Gencer, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969, 1967, 1972, 1971 and 1971 respectively.   They were arrested in the course of operations against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). Şükrü Demirtaş was taken into police custody on 10 March 1996 and the other applicants were arrested between 5 and 7 May 1995. On 17 May 2001 Mr Baştımar was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment and the other applicants were sentenced to the death penalty, which was commuted to life imprisonment.   Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained of the length of their detention pending trial (approximately five years and two months for Mr Demirtaş and six years for the other applicants) and the lack of a remedy by which to challenge their continuing detention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded EUR 3,500 to Mr Demirtaş and EUR 4,000   to each of the other applicants for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded them EUR 1,500 jointly for costs and expenses, less the sum of EUR   701 received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Fazıl Ahmet Tamer v. Turkey (no. 6289/02)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Fazıl Ahmet Tamer, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.   The applicant was imprisoned, notably from December 2000 to May 2001. During that time he sent several letters to his lawyer. He claims that the prison authorities either refused to forward the letters or deleted passages from them.   The prison authorities also destroyed a letter which the applicant had intended to send to the newspaper Radikal with a view to its publishing an article he had written on “F-type prisons and the law”.   The applicant complained that the prison authorities had intercepted and censored his correspondence. He relied in particular on Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Having regard to the extent to which the applicant’s correspondence had been monitored and the lack of adequate and effective safeguards against abuse, the Court considered that the interference with his right to respect for his correspondence was disproportionate and thus could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 6 and 13. 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.)     No violation of Article 3 Güzel-Zeybek v. Turkey (no. 71908/01)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Asiye Güzel-Zeybek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.   On 22 February 1997 the applicant was taken into police custody in the course of an operation against an illegal armed organisation, the MLKP-K. On 27 February she was examined by a doctor, who found no signs of violence on her body. On leaving police custody on 6 March 1997 the applicant underwent a further medical examination, which again revealed no signs of violence. She was then placed in pre-trial detention.   After being committed for trial in the Istanbul State Security Court, the applicant stated that while in police custody she had been beaten and insulted; among other things, she had been suspended by the feet, attacked and raped on the orders of the officer in charge of questioning. In July and August 1998 the applicant was examined by a panel of three doctors from the psychiatric department of Istanbul Medical Faculty, who diagnosed her as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.   Meanwhile, in July 1997, the applicant’s co-defendants had lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers in whose custody they and the applicant had been held, alleging ill-treatment. The outcome of the proceedings is not known.   In addition, further to the applicant’s allegations, in July 1998 the public prosecutor’s office instituted proceedings against the police officers in whose custody she had been held. In the course of the subsequent investigation the officers in question gave evidence and the applicant was examined by doctors in December 1999 and August 2000. They found that she had suffered trauma, possibly as a result of her time in police custody, but were unable to conclude that she had been ill-treated. The public prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue the proceedings; its ruling was upheld by the Assize Court in December 2000.   On 16 October 2002 the applicant was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for leading an illegal armed organisation.   The applicant alleged that, while in police custody, she had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and that she had had no remedy available in respect of that treatment. She also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted, in particular, that the applicant’s first two medical examinations had not revealed any signs of violence on her body. Furthermore, she had been placed in pre-trial detention on 6 March 1997 and had neither brought her allegation of rape to the attention of the prison medical authorities nor asked to see a doctor until 8 October 1997. In addition, although the medical reports that had been produced supported the view that the applicant had suffered trauma, possibly as a result of her time in police custody, they did not conclude unequivocally that she had been ill-treated and, in particular, raped.   Having regard to the material before it, the Court considered that the applicant’s allegation that she had been ill-treated and raped while in police custody was not substantiated by evidence allowing it to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there had been a violation of Article 3. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3.   The Court further noted that the investigation into the applicant’s allegations had not been initiated until approximately 14 months after she had complained to the authorities that she had been ill-treated, and the police officers in question had not been interviewed until three years after the end of her time in their custody. The shortcomings in the investigation and the lack of promptness and diligence led to the conclusion that the authorities had not conducted a sufficiently thorough and effective investigation for the purposes of Article 13. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Hıdır Durmaz v. Turkey (no. 55913/00)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Hıdır Durmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and was serving his prison sentence in Ceyhan Prison at the time of his application to the Court.   He was arrested on 11 August 1995 and was later charged with being a member of an illegal organisation, the Turkish Communist Party/Marxist and Leninist-Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army. On 14 July 1998 Adana State Security Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to 14 years and seven months’ imprisonment. That judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 20 April 1999   The applicant complained, in particular, about the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court that tried and convicted him, and about the length of the criminal proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   As in a number of similar cases, the Court found that the applicant’s concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the State Security Court could be regarded as objectively justified. It therefore held unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. However it found no violation of the same article as regards the length of the criminal proceedings. It held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant and awarded him EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kalem v. Turkey (no. 70145/01)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) The applicant, Bayram Kalem, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.   In June 1999 one of the applicant’s fellow detainees lodged a criminal complaint against him, alleging that he had disseminated separatist propaganda by making comments in support of the PKK, such as: “The PKK is a party formed against tyrants”; “Apo [Abdullah Öcalan] is a Kurdish leader”; “The south-eastern territory [of Turkey] forms Kurdistan”; and “Throughout history, the Turks have oppressed the Kurds”. When questioned by the public prosecutor’s office, the applicant disputed the allegations against him and asserted that he was neither a member nor a supporter of the PKK and that he did not get on with his fellow detainees. The public prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against him and interviewed several of his fellow detainees.   On 25 July 2000 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant, who had not been summoned to attend the trial, and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and a fine equivalent to EUR 1,345 for disseminating separatist propaganda. In accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Keskin Criminal Court had been asked to take evidence from the applicant in his defence and from other witnesses, under powers delegated by the State Security Court.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that he had not been present at his trial in the Ankara State Security Court and had not had the opportunity to examine witnesses. He also alleged a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Having regard to what had been at stake for the applicant in the proceedings, and to the fact that his conviction had been based on statements by his fellow detainees, the Court considered that the State Security Court could not have given judgment without directly obtaining evidence from him. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d). It considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 10 and awarded him EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, less the sum of EUR 701 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Resul Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 74318/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants are Resul Sadak, Nihat Osal, Mehmet Çakar, Rüstem Bayar, Tahir Kutlu, Cengiz Balık, İzzet Belge, Abdurrezak İnan, Mehmet Temelkuran, Mehmet Nezir Ayan, Yakup Uyar and Erdal Güler. They are all Turkish nationals. At the time of the events in question, Resul Sadak was the provincial leader and the other applicants were members of the Peoples’ Democracy Party (HADEP).   On 23 September 2000 all of the applicants, except Mr Güler, were arrested while on their way to participate in the Batman Provincial Congress of HADEP. Mr Güler, on the other hand, was taken into custody on 27 September 2000.   On 1 October 2000 the Şırnak Magistrates’ Court ordered all the applicants except Yakup Uyar to be detained on remand. Criminal proceedings were subsequently brought against them for aiding and abetting the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK). They were ultimately acquitted of all charges against them.   The applicants complained about the length of their detention in custody (almost 96 hours in the case of Mr Güler and eight days for the other applicants). They relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in each applicant’s case except for in the case of Mr Güler, whose application was declared inadmissible. It awarded each of the other applicants EUR   1,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Sar and Others v. Turkey (no. 74347/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Hayrettin Sar, Feyzullah Sar and Mahmut Öztekin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977, 1963 and 1965 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   All three applicants were arrested in the course of a police operation against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), Hayrettin and Feyzullah Sar on 10 May 2001   and Mahmut Öztekin on 12 May 2001.   In August 2001 Feyzullah Sar and Mahmut Öztekin were acquitted. In November 2002 Hayrettin Sar was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for providing support and assistance to the PKK.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained of the length of their detention in police custody (87 hours and 30 minutes in the case of Mahmut Öztekin and four days and six hours in the case of Feyzullah Sar and Hayrettin Sar).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 as regards Mahmut Öztekin and a violation of Article 5 § 3 as regards Feyzullah Sar and Hayrettin Sar.   It awarded Feyzullah Sar and Hayrettin Sar EUR 1,500 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Tanyar and Küçükergin v. Turkey (no. 74242/01) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Zekai Tanyar and Ali Cengiz Küçükergin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1953 and 1955 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey).   In 1994 the applicants purchased a dwelling in İzmir and informed the provincial authority that it was to be used as a place of worship, prayer, meeting and study. Despite being informed by the authority of the need to obtain the consent of the owners of the other dwellings in the building, the community began to meet without prior authorisation. As a result, the applicants were fined the equivalent of EUR 28 in 1999. They did not pay the fine within the statutory period. In August 2000 they were ordered to pay a further fine equivalent to EUR 38. They appealed unsuccessfully against the order.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants alleged that they had been fined following proceedings which had been unfair in that no public hearing had been held.     The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 2 (death of applicant’s brother) Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   No violation of Articles 3 and 5 Yazıcı v. Turkey (no. 48884/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Mehmet Salih Yazıcı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Silvan (Turkey). His brother, Ramazan Yazıcı, who was a minibus driver on the Diyarbakır-Silvan route, went missing on 22 November 1996. His body was found several days later.   Shortly after Ramazan’s disappearance, the applicant asked the public prosecutor’s office to obtain information as to his brother’s fate, alleging that he had been arrested by plain-clothes police officers who had made him get into an unmarked car.   On the morning of 3 December 1996 a shepherd found Ramazan’s body by the İdil-Midyat road, between the villages of Sarıköy and Mağara in the İdil district, in Şırnak province. An investigation was opened immediately, in the course of which evidence was taken from the applicant, his other brother and witnesses. A medical examination of the body revealed that a cavity had formed as a result of the entry of a bullet under the deceased’s left ear and that his mouth had been gagged with adhesive tape and his hands bound behind his back with a strip of fabric. As the cause of death was obvious, it was not thought necessary to carry out a full autopsy.   In January 1999 the İdil public prosecutor’s office declined jurisdiction on account of the similarities between Ramazan’s murder and two other killings that were being investigated by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office. Furthermore, other victims whose bodies had been found along the Adıyaman-Hilvan and Şanlıurfa-Adıyaman roads in December 1996 had been abducted in similar circumstances. In March 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office likewise declined jurisdiction on the ground that Ramazan’s murder had been committed by unknown persons belonging to a criminal gang and that such offences fell within the jurisdiction of the State Security Court. It therefore forwarded the file on the investigation to the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court.   The investigation into Ramazan’s death is still open and his killers have yet to be identified.   The applicant complained that his brother had been the victim of an extrajudicial killing. He relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   In the light of the evidence before it, the Court considered that a conclusion that Ramazan had been murdered by or with the complicity of agents of the State would be based more on hypothesis and speculation than on reliable evidence. Seeing that it had not been established beyond reasonable doubt that Turkey’s responsibility had been engaged in the killing of the applicant’s brother, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 as regards Ramazan’s death.   However, although the investigation into Ramazan’s death might at first sight appear to have complied with the requirements of the Convention, the Court considered that it could not be regarded as exhaustive or satisfactory, particularly as the authorities had attempted to pursue only one line of inquiry: that of a murder committed by unknown persons belonging to a criminal gang. Both the applicant and the other witnesses who had given evidence during the investigation had emphasised, among other things, that plain-clothes police officers might have been involved. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 as regards the ineffectiveness of the investigation into Ramazan’s death.   Furthermore, referring back to its finding that Turkey’s involvement in the killing and alleged detention of the applicant’s brother had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 3 and 5.   Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.     Aslan and Şancı v. Turkey (no. 58055/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Borak v. Turkey (no. 60132/00) The three applicants are Turkish nationals who were serving prison sentences at the time of their applications to the Court.   They complained, in particular, that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the İzmir State Security Court which tried them, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Mr Borak also made a complaint under Article 8 (right to private life) which the Court unanimously declared inadmissible.   As in a number of similar cases, the Court found that the applicant’s concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the State Security Court could be regarded as objectively justified. It therefore held unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court made no award for just satisfaction as the applicants in Aslan and Şancı did not submit a claim within the specific time-limit. It found that the finding of a violation in the case of Borak constituted in itself sufficient compensation. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Topkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 72317/01, 72322/01, 72327/01, 72330/01, 72332/01, 72335/01, 72340/01, 72342/01, 72347/01, 72348/01, 72349/01, 72351/01, 72357/01, 72358/01, 72362/01, 72366/01 and 72372/01) Yener and Others v. Turkey (nos. 62633/00, 62634/00 and 62636/00) The applicants are 22 Turkish nationals. They complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of delays in paying them additional compensation for expropriation.   The Court held unanimously in each case that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. In Topkaya and Others v. Turkey it awarded the applicants EUR 44,600 in total for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 jointly for costs and expenses. In Yener and Others v. Turkey it awarded the applicants EUR 4,165 in total for pecuniary damage and EUR 500   jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained, in particular, of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. They relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). The applicants in Skurčák v. Slovakia and Solárová and Others v. Slovakia made other complaints which were declared inadmissible.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Åkerblom v. Poland (no. 64974/01) Boszko v. Poland (no. 4054/03) Wiercigroch v. Poland (no. 14580/02)   Wróblewski v. Poland (no. 76299/01) Zdeb v. Poland (no. 72998/01) Zygmunt v. Poland (no. 69128/01) Skurčák v. Slovakia (no. 58708/00) Solárová and Others v. Slovakia (no. 77690/01) Tomláková v. Slovakia (no. 17709/04) Namlı and Others v. Turkey (no. 51963/99)   ***   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.