CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 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 } .sDCB8D698 { width:192.9pt; display:inline-block } .sCD8B7DB8 { width:195.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7C3E89B0 { width:96.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sE89FF543 { width:137.49pt; display:inline-block } .s672ECD0B { width:122.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2B3AEB0A { width:79.46pt; display:inline-block } .sC084C3B3 { width:21.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7AA11098 { width:269.58pt; display:inline-block } .sF1FFB911 { width:17.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s466A6DC9 { width:38.12pt; display:inline-block } .s60AAF2ED { width:102.78pt; display:inline-block } .sB6A6DE73 { width:104.82pt; display:inline-block } .sE6BC5077 { width:32.8pt; display:inline-block } .s9A4F3776 { width:71.49pt; display:inline-block } .s5AC64DAB { width:73.51pt; display:inline-block } .sC9CD9FCD { width:92.12pt; display:inline-block } .s53D4691F { width:35.23pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sC4418D41 { width:207.48pt; display:inline-block } .s343B1118 { width:32.79pt; display:inline-block } .sDA358BA6 { width:130.81pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s5E3CF51E { width:40.84%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s80BA0161 { width:27.66%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s69675CB1 { width:16.44%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s4DC8A21A { width:15.06%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s75FA9197 { width:40.84%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s9EC74908 { width:27.66%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sD55B5934 { width:16.44%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s84B650CF { width:15.06%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sE099AA7A { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s7A381B1C { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s82B9E78A { height:14.6pt } .s33580B01 { width:40.84%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s9AEB27ED { width:27.66%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s1895CE8 { width:16.44%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s86251B5C { width:15.06%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; 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   814 21.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 36 Chamber judgments, none of which is 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 (a), (b) and (d) Borisova v. Bulgaria (application no. 56891/00)   The applicant, Tanya Borisova Borisova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria).   At 11.30 a.m. on 8 September 1999 she was arrested for an act of hooliganism.   At about 3.20   p.m. she was sentenced to five days’ imprisonment without having been properly informed about the charge and without having had time to prepare her defence or to call witnesses.   The applicant alleged that the proceedings against her were unfair. She relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court found that the applicant's right to be promptly informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against her and her right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence were infringed. It further found that her right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against her had also been infringed.   The European Court of Human Rights therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (b) and (d) and awarded Mrs Borisova 2,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Petar Vasilev v. Bulgaria (no. 62544/00)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Petar Hristov Vasilev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Varna (Bulgaria).   The applicant was arrested on 18 March 1999 on suspicion of having committed grand larceny.   The applicant appealed against the decisions prolonging his detention. When examining his appeals the courts relied on the statutory provisions requiring mandatory detention for serious intentional offences. They also refused to examine in substance a number of the applicant's appeals because of their similarity with some of his previous appeals. The applicant’ new arguments relating to his health and family situation were also never considered.   On 28 November 2000 the applicant was sentenced to five year’s imprisonment for larceny.   The applicant complained, in particular, that the courts failed to examine all aspects relevant to the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. He relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the limited scope, or lack, of judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand after December 1999. It awarded Mr Vasilev EUR   800 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Radanović v. Croatia (no. 9056/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Seka Radanović, is a Croatian and Canadian national who was born in 1939 and currently lives in Burlington (Canada).   The applicant’s flat in Karlovac where she lived until October 1991 when she left to live in Germany was taken over by the State Temporary Takeover and Managing of Certain Property Act and allocated to a third person. The applicant lodged proceedings to evict the temporary occupant and to regain possession of her flat. As the domestic authorities were unable to provide alternative accommodation for the occupant before December 2003 they did not bring any civil action to evict him and he was permitted to remain in her flat, effectively preventing her from using if for more than six years.   The applicant complained that she was prevented from using her property for a prolonged period of time and that she had no effective remedy to her complaint. The applicant relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court found that the applicant was forced to bear a burden – which should have been borne by the State – of providing the temporary occupant with a place to stay, a weight she eventually had to carry for more than six years. The Court considered that the Croatian authorities failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interest of the community and the protection of the applicant's right to property and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   It also found that the remedies open to the applicant were ineffective and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The applicant was awarded EUR 6,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Zunic v. Italy (no. 14405/05)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 The applicant, Senad Zunic, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1970. He is currently in Padua Prison in Italy.   The applicant was accused of being a member of a criminal gang and exploiting prostitution. The Italian authorities declared him untraceable and a lawyer was officially assigned to represent him. In August 1998 Lucca Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of around EUR 25,822.   The applicant was arrested in Croatia in 2002 and was extradited to Italy where he was imprisoned in execution of his sentence. He appealed against the judgment convicting him, arguing that he had not been informed either of the proceedings against him or of his conviction. His appeal was dismissed by the trial and appeal courts and by the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that he had been tried in absentia without being informed of the proceedings against him or having the opportunity to present his defence before the Italian courts.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 3,849.50 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Popova v. Russia (no. 23697/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Lyudmila Nikolayevna Popova, is a Russian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Barnaul (Russia).   In May 1994 the applicant brought a civil action against her employer.   On 25 December 2001 the Tymovsk District Court, issued an interim decision discontinuing the proceedings in the applicant's case because she had defaulted at two hearings and appeared to have lost interest in the case.   The applicant claimed that she had not been informed about the hearings and that she only received a copy of the decision discontinuing the proceedings in August 2005.   The applicant complained, in particular, that the domestic courts’ discontinued her case without notifying her. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court).   The Court concluded that the decision on the discontinuation of the proceedings was issued without appropriate notification of the assumptions on which it had been based and that it was not served on the applicant in a prompt manner. It therefore found that the failure of the domestic authorities to determine the applicant's claim deprived her of the right of access to a court. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Gençer and Others v. Turkey (no. 6291/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The five applicants, Yusuf Gençer, Erdoğan İskender Ağcabay, Zeki Olkun, Recep Vurmuş and Ahmet Pektopal, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1964, 1971, 1956, 1969 and 1964 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey).   In February 2001 the applicants, who are all trade union members, were involved in an altercation with the president of their trade union. The applicants were charged with assault and were ordered by İzmir Police Court to pay a fine of approximately EUR 80 each. The applicants lodged an objection against the order with the Turkish criminal courts and requested in particular that a hearing be held. Their objection was dismissed without any hearing being held.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained that their case had not been tried fairly as no 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. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 2 (deaths) Violation of Article 2 (investigation) No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Gömi and Others v. Turkey (no. 35962/97)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation) The 58 applicants are Turkish nationals; 49 of them were in Ümraniye Prison at the material time; the remaining applicants are the relatives of four prisoners who died in 1996. The applicants complain of the events which took place in Ümraniye Prison in December 1995 and January 1996.   The applicants who were in prison stated that they had been attacked by prison staff and by the security forces on 13 and 15 December 1995; they said that a large number of prisoners had been injured and had received no medical care. According to the Turkish authorities, the security forces had been confronted with a riot in Ümraniye Prison.   The imprisoned applicants submitted that the security forces had again attacked the prisoners on 4 January 1996 for no reason. Around 60 prisoners were seriously injured and were transferred to hospitals in Haydarpaşa and Bayrampaşa.   According to the Government, on 4 January 1996 the prisoners had first of all refused to participate in the usual prison count. The prison authorities had then conducted a general search with the help of gendarmes. While the latter had been taking the necessary measures in the corridors, some prisoners had barricaded the doors and launched an attack using iron bars, broken glass and pieces of concrete. The gendarmes had broken down the barricade, made mainly from beds and wardrobes. In the scuffle a gendarme had been taken hostage.   45 prisoners, 21 gendarmes and 10 prison officers were injured during these events; four prisoners died of their injuries.   A number of investigations were begun. Proceedings were brought against members of the security forces for homicide and assault and against the prisoners concerned for revolt against prison authority. The proceedings against the members of the security forces were terminated; those against 208 inmates are currently stayed.   Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants related to the prisoners who died alleged that their deaths had resulted from the violence to which they had been subjected during the events of 4 January 1996. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the imprisoned applicants complained that they had been beaten by the security forces during the events of December 1995 and January 1996 and had not received adequate medical care.   As the Court was not in a position to establish “beyond any reasonable doubt” that the present case had involved the use of force which was disproportionate to the aim pursued, namely “quelling a riot” and/or “in defence of any person against … violence”, it was unable to conclude that Turkey was to be held responsible for the deaths in question. It therefore held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 2 on this point.   As to the investigation into the deaths, the Court considered that the Turkish authorities had not acted with sufficient promptness and reasonable diligence. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 on this point.   As to the failure to provide proper medical care, the Court observed that the applicants had not substantiated this complaint in any way and that it did not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 3. With regard to the treatment allegedly meted out to the applicants, the Court was mindful of the potential for violence which existed in a prison and the fact that disobedience by prisoners could degenerate rapidly into a revolt requiring the intervention of the security forces. The Court saw no grounds for criticising the authorities for the measures taken in this case. Accordingly, it held that there had not been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the treatment to which the prisoners had been subjected.   In addition, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 in relation to some of the applicants on account of the lack of an effective investigation by the authorities in order to establish the facts.   Finally, the Court considered it unnecessary to examine separately the complaints under Articles 6 and 13.   As the applicants had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction in accordance with the proper procedures, the Court saw no reason to make an award under that head. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Koçak and Others v. Turkey (nos. 23720/02, 23735/02 to 23736/02) The applicants, Turgut Koçak, Hasan Yavaş and Necmi Özyurda, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949, 1960 and 1964 respectively and were serving their prison sentences in Antalya Prison at the time of their applications to the Court.   At the time of the events, Turgut Koçak was the General Secretary and the other applicants were the members of the board of directors of the Turkish Socialist Workers Party.   In January 2001 the applicants were charged with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. Ankara State Security Court subsequently convicted them as charged and sentenced them to three years and nine months' imprisonment and barred them from public service for three years. They appealed to the Court of Cassation which ultimately upheld the judgment.   On an unspecified date during the appeal proceedings, the principal public prosecutor submitted his written opinion. That opinion was not communicated to the applicants.   The applicants complained that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to put forward their counter-arguments. They relied on Article 6 § 3 (b). The Court, however, decided to examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1.   The Court reaffirmed its established case-law that it was incumbent on the registry of the Court of Cassation, as a matter of fairness, to inform the applicant that the opinion had been filed so that he could comment on it in writing.   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 compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants and awarded them EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Müslüm Özbey v. Turkey (no. 50087/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Müslüm Özbey, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Istanbul. A journalist by profession, he was at the material time the proprietor and editor ‑ in ‑ chief of the monthly journal Maya, Enternasyonalist Devrimci Gazete (Maya, internationalist revolutionary gazette).   Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for disseminating separatist propaganda through the press, on account of the publication in September 1997 of four articles directing virulent criticism at Government policy on the Kurdish question.   On 27 May 1998 the Istanbul National Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, sentenced the applicant to one year and four months’ imprisonment and to a fine of approximately EUR 12,000, and imposed a one-month publication ban on the journal. In October 1999 the national security court ordered a stay of execution of the applicant’s sentence.   The applicant contended that his conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression and complained that the proceedings leading to his conviction had been unfair. He relied on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court considered that the reasons given by the Turkish courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The articles in question had not encouraged the use of violence or armed resistance or insurrection, nor had they amounted to hate speech. In the Court’s view, that was the essential factor to take into consideration. Taking into account the severity of the sentence imposed on the applicant, the Court considered that his conviction was disproportionate to the aims pursued and, accordingly, was not “necessary in a democratic society”. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the national security court which had included a military judge on its bench.   By way 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.)   Okay v. Turkey (no. 6283/02)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 The applicant, Mürsel Okay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   The applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on 10 May 2001 on suspicion of links to the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). On 18 May 2001 he was brought before a judge who ordered his release. In March 2002 he was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained of the length of his detention in police custody (eight days), the lack of a remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and the absence of a right to compensation for the length of his detention. He relied on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Oruç v. Turkey (no. 33620/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Abdulvahap Oruç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in İzmit (Turkey).   On 16 June 1993 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant for having forged official documents. On 18 January he was found guilty and sentenced to two years and 1 months’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment on 24 January 2002.   The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him which lasted eight years and seven months. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Sıracattin Şen v. Turkey (no. 9577/03)           Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Sıracattin Şen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul.   In July 1997 the applicant brought an action for compensation before the Bakırköy Assize Court for having been wrongfully held in pre-trial detention for 18 months. The proceedings were concluded in May 2005.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of the proceedings to which he had been a party, which had lasted eight years and ten months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (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:   de Angelis and Others v. Italy (no. 68852/01) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Graziella de Angelis, Paolo Giuseppe de Angelis and Leda Izzotti, are Italian nationals who were born in 1945, 1943 and 1922 respectively and live in Fano (Italy).   The applicants are the heirs of a person who owned land in Fano. The authorities took possession of the land with a view to expropriating it and began to carry out building work on it. Since no expropriation order was issued and no compensation paid, the applicants brought proceedings seeking damages for the unlawful occupancy of their land.     The applicants submitted that the occupancy of their land had breached their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). They further alleged a violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held 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. It considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision and consequently reserved it. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pais v. Romania (no. 4738/04)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Sanda Pais, is a Romanian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Bucharest.   In her capacity as heir, the applicant brought an action against the authorities seeking to recover possession of a building in Bucharest which had been nationalised in 1950. Her ownership of the property was recognised by a court decision which became final. However, the applicant was unable to make use of a flat in the building as the authorities had sold it to the tenants before the above-mentioned decision had been given. The action to recover possession of the flat brought by the applicant against the authorities and the former tenants was dismissed on the ground that the tenants had acted in good faith in concluding the contract of sale.   The applicant relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court considered that the deprivation of the applicant’s property rights over the flat in question, combined with the total absence of compensation, had imposed a disproportionate burden on her. Consequently, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of the complaint under Article 6 § 1.   The Court held that Romania was to restore the flat in question to the applicant within three months of the date on which the Court’s judgment became final. In the absence of such restoration, the Government were to pay her EUR 60,000 in respect of pecuniary damage.   The Court in any case awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pop v. Romania (no. 7234/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Valer Pop, is a Romanian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Baia ‑ Mare (Romania). He sought the return of land situated in Miresu Mare which had belonged to members of his family. A judgment of 22 January 1997 in his favour, ordering the return of one piece of land, was not enforced.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained of the failure to enforce the above-mentioned judgment in his favour.   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that Romania must enforce the judgment of 22 January 1997 concerning the land at issue (with the exception of a plot of approximately 972 square metres in respect of which the authorities were not responsible for non-enforcement), within three months of the date on which the Court’s judgment became final. In the absence of such enforcement, the Government were to pay the applicant EUR 15,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court in any case awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Petrov v. Russia (no. 7061/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Vitaliy Sergeyevich Petrov, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Orsk (Russia).   The applicant complained that a final judgment in his favour was quashed in supervisory review proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the quashing, by way of supervisory review, of a final judgment in the applicant’s favour, and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Göcekli v. Turkey (no. 71813/01)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Güler and Çalışkan v. Turkey (no. 52746/99)   Mehmet Göcekli is a Turkish national who was born in 1970. At the time the application was lodged he was in Nazilli Prison in Turkey.   Ali Güler and Onur Çalışkan are Turkish nationals who were born in 1961 and 1975; at the time the application was lodged they were in Ankara Prison.   In June 1998 İzmir National Security Court, with a military judge sitting on its bench, sentenced Mr Göcekli to 14 years and seven months’ imprisonment for membership of an illegal armed gang, the DHKP/C. When the case was remitted by the Court of Cassation the national security court, this time composed solely of civilian judges, imposed the same sentence on the applicant.   In July 1998 Ankara National Security Court sentenced Mr Güler to five years’ imprisonment and Mr Çalışkan to three years’ imprisonment for acts of vandalism and also on account of their participation in an illegal demonstration and involvement in the throwing of Molotov cocktails.   Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained that the proceedings leading to their convictions had been unfair.   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the national security court. It considered it unnecessary to examine the applicants’ other complaints regarding the unfairness of the proceedings. As Mr Güler and Mr Çalışkan had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court saw no reason to make an award under that head. The Court awarded Mr Göcekli EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Hasan Kaya v. Turkey (no. 33696/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Hasan Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Diyarbakır.   The applicant complained that he had been paid insufficient interest on additional compensation received following the expropriation of his land and that the authorities had delayed in paying him the relevant amount. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 44,192 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ldokova v. Ukraine (no. 17133/04) Movsesyan v. Ukraine (no. 31088/02) Oleg Semenov v. Ukraine (no. 25464/03) Shcherbinin and Zharikov v. Ukraine (nos. 42480/04 and 43141/04) Slukvina v. Ukraine (no. 9023/03) Sukhoy v. Ukraine (no. 18860/03)   Zozulya v. Ukraine (no. 17466/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   The applicants are seven Ukrainian nationals and one Russian national.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about the lengthy failure of the State authorities to enforce judgments given in their favour. With the exception of the applicant in the case of Zozulya , they also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Relying on Article 13, the applicant in the case of Ldokova also claimed that she had no “effective remedy” concerning her complaint.   The Court held unanimously that in all the cases there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, and, with the exception of Zozulya , a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court further held that it was not necessary to rule on the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 in the case of Ldokova .   The Court held unanimously that in the cases of Movsesyan and Oleg Semenov the State should pay the applicants the judgment debts still owed to them, and awarded the amounts, in euros, as shown in the table below. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Ldokova 220     Movsesyan   1,200   256.80 Oleg Semenov   1,800   Shcherbinin and Zharikov   2,100   Slukvina   800   Sukhoy   1,200      Zozulya   1,500       Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the excessive length of civil, or administrative proceedings. They also complained under Article 13 that they had no “effective remedy” concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 in all the cases listed below.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 13 Čuden and Others v. Slovenia (no. 38597/03) Gluhar v. Slovenia (no. 14852/03) Herič v. Slovenia (no. 33595/02) Marič v. Slovenia (no. 35489/02) Nose v. Slovenia (no. 21675/02) Vrečko v. Slovenia (no. 25616/02) Žehelj v. Slovenia (no. 67447/01) Židov v. Slovenia (no. 27701/02) Moroz and Others v. Ukraine (no. 36545/02) Teliga and Others v. Ukraine (no. 72551/01)   ***   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.