CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 février 2007

.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 } .sC918B24D { width:84.14pt; display:inline-block } .sE4C3D2A1 { width:88.82pt; display:inline-block } .sAD9ABFB0 { width:36.82pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1B419512 { width:34.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD2EE1D88 { width:36.79pt; display:inline-block } .sB73264EC { width:238.2pt; display:inline-block } .sBC4BC80B { width:220.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA5DF89D2 { width:148.12pt; display:inline-block } .s73E4B220 { width:234.87pt; display:inline-block } .s30F0174A { width:50.16pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sE5331F9C { width:82.78pt; display:inline-block } .sD6A88E5E { width:41.44pt; display:inline-block } .s30813AC2 { width:28.09pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s94F188F { width:90.12pt; display:inline-block } .sDE2F7426 { width:167.47pt; display:inline-block } .s717A66B4 { width:246.27pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sF80935C6 { width:259.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s99F7FB72 { width:120.14pt; display:inline-block } .sCECA86E7 { width:98.88%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s228B698E { width:34.98%; 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 } .sE1852B6E { width:28.54%; 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 } .sF3DA27A2 { width:36.48%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sE59DA6E9 { width:34.98%; 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 } .s799F1D38 { width:28.54%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F4151A4 { width:36.48%; 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 } .s689B1A6B { width:34.98%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sB0263619 { width:28.54%; 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 } .s1556A27D { width:36.48%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4C236C58 { width:67.5pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD111A774 { width:137.22pt; 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   104 15.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Luxembourg, Romania, Russia, Spain, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”,   Turkey and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 33 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 (fairness) Angel Angelov v. Bulgaria (application no 51343/99) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Angel Filipov Angelov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   The application concerns an incident in which the applicant, a taxi driver at the relevant time, hit a pedestrian with his car. The applicant brought the victim to the nearest hospital, but the latter died several days later. The applicant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, given a one year’s suspended prison sentence and had his driving licence suspended for one year.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleged that he was denied access to review (cassation) proceedings in relation to his conviction and imprisonment and also complained that the length (five years and seven-and-a-half months) of the criminal proceedings against him were excessive.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the applicant’s right of access to a court and no violation of the same article concerning the length of the criminal proceedings. The Court awarded the applicant 800   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)         Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Two violations of Article 13 Krasimir Yordanov v. Bulgaria (no. 50899/99)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Krasimir Yordanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   On 15 February 1991 the applicant was charged with misappropriation of funds and infringement of the regulations governing currency transfers. In the course of the investigation, various items were seized: business and accounting documents relating to the applicant’s undertaking, three video cassettes containing recordings of business meetings, private correspondence and the applicant’s international passport.   The proceedings against the applicant were discontinued on 26 November 1998 as the offence concerning currency transfers had been decriminalised and there was insufficient evidence of the offence of misappropriation. The items that were seized were not returned to the applicant since they had disappeared from the case file.   The applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and of interference with his right to respect for his private life and correspondence on account of the failure to return the personal documents seized in the course of the investigation. He also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the violations alleged. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the length of the criminal proceedings (six years and two months from the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Bulgaria on 7 September 1992) and a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 6 § 1. It also held that there had been a violation of Article 8 as regards the failure to return to the applicant the items seized during the criminal investigation, and a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 8.     By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 799   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Rezov v. Bulgaria (no. 56337/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Todor Georgiev Rezov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Vratza (Bulgaria).   The application concerns a newspaper article in which the applicant, a journalist at the time, refers to defendants charged with kidnapping calling for criminal proceedings to be brought against the police officers who had arrested them. As a result, criminal proceedings, later discontinued, were brought against the applicant for libel by one of the policemen referred to in the article.   The applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings against him interfered with his right to freedom of expression in breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and that the length (four years, four months and 20 days) of those proceedings was excessive, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), the applicant also complained that, in the course of the proceedings against him, the authorities treated him as guilty of the offence and failed to carry out a balanced investigation.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, and awarded him EUR   1,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the complaint was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Mathony v. Luxembourg (no. 15048/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Gilles Mathony, is a French national who was born in 1967 and lives in Luxembourg.   In March 2001 the applicant was stopped by the police while driving his car when disqualified. The car was seized and the applicant unsuccessfully sought to have it returned to him.   In July 2001 the applicant was disqualified from driving for 12 months and his vehicle was confiscated. He appealed against the disqualification. The Court of Appeal, composed of the same judges who had refused his request to have the car returned, upheld the first-instance judgment. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant on 21 November 2002.   The applicant complained that the Court of Appeal that had heard his case had not been impartial as the same judges had already ruled on his request for the return of the vehicle. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court considered that the impartiality of the trial court could have been open to genuine doubt in that the same judges had previously refused the applicant’s request for the release of his car from seizure, basing their decision in particular on the applicant’s conduct and the “gravity of the offence”. It therefore found that the applicant’s fears in that regard could be considered objectively justified and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Bock and Palade v. Romania (no. 21740/02)            Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants are Marian Dorel Iosef Bock, of Romanian and German nationality, who was born in 1940 and died in 2003, and Monica Ligia Daniela Palade, a Romanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Satu-Mare (Romania).   The applicants’ parents had been the owners of a block of 18 flats and the adjoining land in Arad. A large part of the building was destroyed in a bombing raid in 1944. The State nationalised the property in 1950 but did not enter its ownership in the Land Register. The building was restored by the Timişoara regional railway headquarters in 1952 and was later transferred to Arad Town Council.   In 1994, in their capacity as joint heirs, the applicants had their title to the property entered in the Land Register and began to pay property tax on it. They took possession of only one flat, which they let out to a company; the other flats were let out to private individuals by the Town Council.   In 1999 the Town Council brought proceedings against the applicants, seeking to have the entry in the Land Register rectified and the State registered as the owner. The courts allowed the Town Council’s application. The Court of Appeal accordingly made an order for the Town Council to be entered in the Land Register as owning more than 83% of the property and enjoying the right to use the adjoining land. The order was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice in an unappealable judgment of 5 December 2001.   In May 2003 the Arad Court of First Instance ordered the partition of the property. It awarded two sets of business premises on the ground floor to the applicants and the remaining flats to the Town Council. That judgment was upheld on appeal.   The applicants submitted, in particular, that their right of property had been infringed on account of the partial loss of their title to the building and their inability to enjoy possession of all the land belonging to them. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court declared the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible and the other complaints inadmissible.   The Court considered that the applicants had had a possession of which they had been partly deprived as a result of the Supreme Court’s final judgment. As to whether that interference with their right of property had been justified, the Court noted that the Supreme Court’s final judgment had found that the Town Council had acquired a right in rem to buildings on the applicants’ land on account of a “factual situation neither desired by nor known to them” which had given rise to an “apparently legal state of affairs”. However, according to Romanian case-law, the fact of erecting buildings on another person’s land, even in perfectly good faith, was not in itself sufficient to confer title to such property on the builder. Accordingly, the apparently legal state of affairs to which the Supreme Court had referred did not fall within the categories of acts and circumstances that could form a basis for the right to buildings on another person’s land.   Since the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had not been provided for by Romanian law, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. With regard to the damage sustained by the applicants, the Court considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision and consequently reserved it. It awarded the applicants EUR 2,000   jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gorbachev v. Russia (no. 3354/02)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Mikhail Mikhailovich Gorbachev, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Aleksin (Russia).   The application concerns Aleksin Town Court’s failure to notify the applicant of developments in two sets of proceedings relating to an employment dispute - in which the applicant had sued his former employer for reinstatement, wage arrears and compensation for damage - and also its failure to examine an action for defamation against Aleksin Town Council. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the decision to discontinue the proceedings concerning the applicant’s employment dispute with his employer without a sufficient factual basis and on account of the failure to ensure that that decision had been served on the applicant, and a further violation of the same article on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to examine the applicant’s action for defamation. Mr   Gorbachev was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   20 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Verdú Verdú v. Spain (no. 43432/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Leonardu Verdú Verdú, is a Spanish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Petrel (Spain).   He often used to buy lottery tickets and then distribute them among his work colleagues. In 1996 one of the tickets won the special prize amounting to the equivalent of EUR   2,956,979.55. The applicant kept the winning ticket for himself.   Claiming that the applicant had promised to give him half his winnings in the event of a lucky draw, J.P.R. lodged a criminal complaint. The applicant was acquitted at first instance but the prosecution appealed.   J.P.R. filed pleadings in the appeal proceedings. On 31 March 1998 the Alicante Audiencia Provincial found the applicant guilty of misappropriation, sentenced him to seven months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay half the winnings in compensation.   On 30 September 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed an amparo appeal by the applicant.   The applicant alleged that he had not received a copy of the pleadings produced by J.P.R. and, consequently, had not had the opportunity to challenge them. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court observed that sending the applicant a copy of the pleadings in question and giving him an opportunity to reply to them could not have had any effect on the outcome of the case and that the applicant himself had acknowledged that the pleadings were similar in substance to the prosecution’s grounds of appeal. It therefore held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Articles 3, 8, 14 and 18   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aksakal v. Turkey (no. 37850/97)   Violation of Article 13     No violation of Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 Soylu v. Turkey (no. 43854/98)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicants, Halis Aksakal and Mehmet Soylu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963 and 1954 respectively. Mr Aksakal lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey) and Mr Soylu lives in Istanbul.   At the time of the events, both applicants lived respectively in villages in the provinces of Diyarbakır and Mardin situated in the then state-of-emergency region of Turkey. Terrorist activity was a major concern in the area due to on-going conflict between the security forces and sections of the Kurdish population calling for Kurdish autonomy, in particular members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The applicants alleged that state security forces forcibly evicted them from their homes and destroyed their property and that the national authorities’ failed to carry out an effective investigation into those complaints.   They relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). They also maintained, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that they were victims of discrimination due to their Kurdish origin, as the destruction of their houses and possessions were part of an official policy. Mr Aksakal also relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 18   (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).   The Court held unanimously that in both cases there had been no violation of Articles 3, 8 and 14, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   In the case of Aksakal , the Court also held unanimously that there was no violation of Article 18 and that it was not necessary to determine whether there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further held, by six votes to   one, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court awarded Mr Aksakal EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses (less EUR   630 granted by way of legal aid). (The judgments are available only in English.)   Balık v. Turkey (no. 6663/02)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 c), 4 and 5 The applicant, Edip Balık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973.   He was arrested and taken into police custody on 5 July 2001 on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. On 13 July 2001 he was detained pending trial and transferred to Diyarbakır Prison. Shortly after being admitted to prison he was returned to police custody for questioning, with judicial authorisation. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on 31   October 2002.   The applicant complained of the unlawfulness and the length of his detention on security police premises and maintained that he had not had any effective remedy or any right to compensation. 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 § 1 (c) in that the applicant had been in a situation resembling police custody for about 20 days. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of a remedy by which the applicant could have challenged his detention on police premises. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5 in that the applicant had been unable to seek compensation for being deprived of his liberty in breach of the Convention. By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,500   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Evrenos Önen v. Turkey (no. 29782/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Evrenos Önen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1937 and lives in İzmir.   The applicant is the owner of a water station in İzmir and had criminal proceedings brought against him for not complying with regulation requirements concerning packaging and marketing of spring and mineral water. As a result, the applicant was issued with a fine and, subsequently, not having paid the fine, with a penal order.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleged that, in connection with those proceedings, he did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and that he was not allowed to defend himself in person or through a lawyer as there were no public hearings. He complained that if he had had a trial with a hearing rather than a penal order, he would have had the opportunity to appeal before the Court of Cassation.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. The Court awarded him EUR 2,160 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Karatay and Others v. Turkey (no. 11468/02)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicants, Fırat Karatay, Fesih Karatay and Şeyhmus Karatay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975, 1973 and 1949 respectively and live in Mardin (Turkey). They all worked for a textile company in Çukurova which filed a petition against the first applicant for fraud. Subsequently, all three applicants were arrested on suspicion of fraud and charged with embezzlement for which the first applicant was convicted and sentenced to five years and four months’ imprisonment. The second and third applicants were acquitted.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained about the length of their detention on remand, which lasted approximately one year for the first applicant and almost seven months for the second and third applicants. They also complained that, during their detention, as they were never brought before a judge or given access to investigation files, they were deprived of the possibility of effectively arguing for their release pending trial, in breach of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and awarded EUR 2,000 to the first applicant and EUR 1,500, each, to the second and third applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,500, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Soysal and Others v. Turkey (nos. 54461/00, 54579/00 and 55922/00) Violation of Article 13 The five applicants are all Turkish nationals employed in the civil service. They claim that they were transferred to another post on account of their membership of a trade union.   Relying in particular on Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants alleged that the decisions to transfer them had infringed their right to freedom of expression, assembly and association and complained that they had not had an effective remedy by which to challenge those decisions.   The Court declared the complaint under Article 13 admissible and the other complaints inadmissible. It noted that Article 4 (g) of Legislative Decree no. 285 granted the governor of the state of emergency region wide-ranging powers as regards transfers. As there was no remedy in Turkish law by which the applicants could have challenged the decision by the governor of the state of emergency region to transfer them, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 and awarded four of the five applicants EUR 500   each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000   jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Taner v. Turkey (no. 38414/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Umut Taner, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in İzmir (Turkey).   The application concerned criminal proceedings against the applicant for causing actual bodily harm following a quarrel with a man in a park which turned into a fight and resulted in the applicant stabbing the man in the leg. The applicant was convicted by İzmir Magistrates’ Court and issued with a penal order which sentenced him to pay a fine. The applicant denied having injured the man and challenged that decision. Having been warned that the fine would be converted into a prison sentence if the applicant did not pay, he paid the relevant charge.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that, not being informed promptly about the criminal charge against him, he had not received a fair and public hearing, had not had adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and had not been allowed to defend himself in person or through a lawyer.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6. No valid claim for just satisfaction having been submitted, the Court considered that no award should be made. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Varsak v. Turkey (no. 6281/02)   Violation of Article 6 The applicant, Şeref Varsak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in İzmir (Turkey).   Following a complaint by his wife alleging domestic violence, he was ordered to pay a fine equivalent to EUR 100. The applicant lodged an objection, which was dismissed by the İzmir Criminal Court on 19 July 2001.   The applicant complained that there had been no hearing in his case. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 on account of the lack of a hearing in proceedings in Turkey. It considered that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 2 (right to life) Yüksel Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 57049/00) Violation of Article 2 (investigation) The applicants, Yüksel Erdoğan, Meliha Erdoğan, Sinan Erdoğan, Bahar Sağlam, Şinasi   Yalçın, Hüsnü Yalçın, Ali Yalçın, Ramazan Erdoğan and Raşidiye Erdoğan, are all Turkish nationals. The application concerns the killing of three of their relatives resulting from an armed clash on 28 September 1994 in a café with police officers from the Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, following a tip-off received from an anonymous caller.   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants alleged that the use of force employed by the security forces against their relatives had been disproportionate, the result of a premeditated plan to unlawfully kill them, that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the case and that the length (eight years and nine months) of proceedings brought against the police officers concerned were excessive.   Taking into account the lack of diligence shown by the representatives of the applicants Ramazan Erdoğan and Raşidiye Erdoğan and, in the absence of a serious indication that the applicants wished to lodge or pursue the application, the Court, unanimously, decided to strike the case out of the list insofar as it was brought on behalf of Ramazan Erdoğan and Raşidiye Erdoğan in respect of the killing of Fuat Erdoğan. The Court declared the application admissible insofar as it was brought by the other seven applicants.   The Court found that it had not been sufficiently proved that there was a premeditated plan to kill the applicants’ relatives but that it had been established that the police officers had ordered the deceased to surrender, had given the necessary warnings before shooting and only started shooting, at long range, after being fired at. The Court also accepted that the police officers had believed that it was necessary to continue firing until the suspects stopped firing back. Given the emergency nature of situation - police officers confronted with armed suspects in a public place - the Court considered that the use of lethal force, however regrettable, had not exceeded what was “absolutely necessary” for the purposes of self-defence and carrying out a lawful arrest. The Court therefore held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 2 as regards the death of İsmet Erdoğan and Elmas Yalçın,   However, the Court did find that the criminal investigation had serious shortcomings, such as the failure to establish whether the deceased had ever handled the firearms found at the scene of the incident and the absence of photographs taken at the scene of the incident or of sketches to give an idea of each police officer’s position in the café at the time of the shootings. Furthermore, the Court observed that only six witnesses had made statements in the course of proceedings before Istanbul Assize Court, three of whom were police officers who had participated in the police operation in question and one of whom was the owner of the café who had not been present at the time of the incident. With regard to those shortcomings and the duration of the trial proceedings, the Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of the State’s procedural obligation under Article 2.   As the applicants had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make such an award. (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:     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Akıntı and Others v. Turkey (no. 59645/00) Canpolat v. Turkey (no. 63354/00) Canseven v. Turkey (no. 70317/01)   The 11 applicants are all Turkish nationals.   They alleged, in particular, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that the state security courts which had tried and sentenced them had not been “ independent and impartial tribunals” because one of their members had been a military judge. Relying on the same article, Mr Canpolat also complained about the length (two years and six months) of criminal proceedings brought against him and Mr Canseven about the non-communication of a written opinion from the principal prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. Mr Canseven further relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) claiming that he was convicted of being a member of an illegal organisation and of throwing Molotov cocktails at various banks on the basis of statements extracted under torture.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the independence and impartiality of the courts which tried the applicants and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in the cases of Akıntı and Others and Canpolat . For costs and expenses, the Court awarded EUR   1,000 to Mr   Canpolat and EUR   1,000, jointly, to the applicants in the case of Akıntı and Others .   In the case Canseven , the applicant not having submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make such an award. Nevertheless, it considered that where an individual, as in the applicant’s case, had been convicted by a court which did not meet the Convention requirements of independence and impartiality, a retrial or a reopening of the case, if requested, represented, in principle, an appropriate way of redressing the violation. The Court further held that it was not necessary to consider the applicant’s complaint relating to the fairness of the proceedings.   The remainder of the applications in the cases of Canseven and Canpolat were declared inadmissible. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gorlova v. Russia (no. 29898/03) Ponomarenko v. Russia (no. 14656/03) Raylyan v. Russia (no. 22000/03)   Pogrebna v. Ukraine (no. 25476/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   The applicants are three Russian nationals and one Ukrainian national.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained, in particular, of the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments given in their favour. They also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, with the exception of Mrs Pogrebna who relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in all the cases and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all the cases except Pogrebna v. Ukraine . The Court further held unanimously that it was not necessary to rule on Mrs Pogrebna’s complaint under Article 13.   The Court held unanimously that the State, in the case of Pogrebna v. Ukraine , should enforce the judgment ordering the applicant’s confiscated property to be returned to her, and awarded the following the amounts, in euros, as shown in the table below. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Gorlova v. Russia 3,100   Ponomarenko v. Russia 3,100   Raylyan v. Russia 3,000   Pogrebna v. Ukraine 1,600 100       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Chekushkin v. Russia (no. 30714/03) Danilchenko v. Russia (no. 30686/03) Gavrilenko v. Russia (no. 30674/03) Grebenchenko v. Russia (no. 30777/03) Knyazhichenko v. Russia (no. 30685/03) Septa v. Russia (no. 30731/03) Vasilyev v. Russia (no. 30671/03) The seven applicants are all Russian nationals who took part in emergency operations at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result they suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions and were awarded special disability benefits.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained, in particular, about the quashing under the supervisory review procedure of judgments declaring reductions in their monthly benefits to be unlawful.   In all the cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the quashing of judgments. The applicants were invited to submit their claims for just satisfaction but failed to do so within the required time-limits. The Court therefore made no award under Article 41. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Kirsten v. Germany the applicant also complained under Article   13 that he had no effective remedy concerning his length-of-proceedings complaint.   Mahmutović v. Croatia (no. 9505/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kirsten v. Germany (no. 19124/02)   Violation of Article 13   Kozarov v. “ the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 64229/01) Struck out     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights.