CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 mai 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s320ECF20 { width:74.11pt; display:inline-block } .s19D04834 { width:100.12pt; display:inline-block } .sFE379883 { width:60.13pt; display:inline-block } .s4722ECCB { width:358.91pt; display:inline-block } .sCCA78367 { width:85.48pt; display:inline-block } .s64098B23 { width:63.49pt; display:inline-block } .s7CF742BF { width:92.13pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sB6F64D44 { width:90.83pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s26DA8EE1 { width:166.81pt; display:inline-block } .sC144FED3 { width:124.1pt; display:inline-block } .sBE2D80E1 { width:106.8pt; display:inline-block } .sE15938B { width:65.47pt; display:inline-block } .s215C1020 { width:105.49pt; display:inline-block } .s77F440AF { width:246.82pt; display:inline-block } .s2E58A8BD { width:27.42pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF7CAFED { width:258.22pt; display:inline-block } .s2CC38117 { width:100.11pt; display:inline-block } .s1DD6A86C { width:86.8pt; display:inline-block } .s18BA34CF { width:174.14pt; display:inline-block } .s17C0F6D0 { width:80.8pt; display:inline-block } .s5994C8CF { width:72.1pt; display:inline-block } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sD56AB616 { width:17.94pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s6DE5089F { width:211.49pt; display:inline-block } .s49A97176 { width:53.43pt; display:inline-block } .sE39816CC { width:17.43pt; display:inline-block } .sE717B9F { width:94.12pt; display:inline-block } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sFC50572F { width:136.14pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   282 3.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Russia, San Marino, Turkey and Ukraine     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 42 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment 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.   Two violations of Article 6 § 1(length) and (fairness) Bösch v. Austria (application no 17912/05) The applicant, Kurt Bösch, is an Austrian national who owns a farm in Frastranz (Austria).   The case concerned the Mayor of Frastanz’s refusal in 1999 to grant Mr Bösch a building permit and the ensuing proceedings.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Bösch complained about the length and unfairness of the proceedings. He further complained that the refusal to grant the building permit had been in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length (four years and nearly two months) of the proceedings and a further violation of the same article on account of the lack of an oral hearing before a tribunal. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The Court awarded Mr Bösch 2,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 7 Custers, Deveaux and Turk v. Denmark (nos. 11843/03, 11847/03 and 11849/03) The applicants are Vincent   Custers, a Dutch national, Olivier Deveaux, a French national, and Lawrence Martin Turk, an American national. At the relevant time, they were all members of Greenpeace.   In the summer of 2001 the applicants took part in a campaign around the Thule Air Base aimed at drawing international attention to a radar (the Thule   Radar) used by the American missile defence programme. They also wanted to collect information on the environmental impact of the air base on the Dundas peninsula. As a result the applicants were convicted of trespassing within the meaning, in particular, of Article 69a of the Penal Code. They were each sentenced to a fine.   Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law), the applicants alleged that they had been convicted of an act which, at the time it had been committed, had not amounted to a criminal offence under Danish law.   The applicants contested having known that the zone they had entered had been a defence area. In the Court’s view, however, the applicants had to have been aware of having entered the base area: they had carefully planned their trip and used a GPS, the Greenpeace website following their progress along the way; photos had been taken of the applicants holding banners with some of the Thule Air Base military facilities in the background and, finally, they had been arrested in close proximity to the built-up part of Thule Air Base and the Thule Radar. The Court therefore considered that the applicants could have foreseen that the area they had entered had not been “freely accessible” within the meaning of Article 69a of the Penal Code and concluded that the applicants’ act had amounted to an offence defined with sufficient clarity and foreseeability in Danish law. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 7. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Karanakis v. Greece (no. 14189/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Georgios Karanakis, is a Turkish national who was born in 1947 and lives on Crete.   The applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him, following the murder of his wife, which resulted in his acquittal in 2004. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings, namely ten years, four months and 28 days. It awarded the applicant EUR 12,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Struck out Acciardi and Campagna v. Italy (no. 41040/98)   Just satisfaction The applicants, Giorgio Acciardi and Emanuella Campagna, are Italian nationals who were both born in 1924 and live in Amendolara Marina (Italy).   In its judgment of 19 May 2005 (press release no. 268, 2005), the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In the judgment delivered today, the Court noted that the parties had reached an agreement. As this agreement was a fair one, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to maintain the application. It therefore decided to strike the case out of its list. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Prokopenko v. Russia (no. 8630/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Larisa Grigoryevna Prokopenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Elektrostal in the Moscow Region.   The case dealt with proceedings concerning a labour and housing dispute.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms Prokopenko complained about the fairness of the proceedings.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the Russian authorities’ failure to notify Ms Prokopenko in good time of the appeal hearing. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. She was awarded EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 2,481 Russian roubles (approximately EUR 71) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Just satisfaction Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino (no. 40786/98)   Strike out The applicant, Beneficio Cappella Paolini, is a San Marinese church institution.     In its judgment of 13 July 2004 (press release no. 360, 2004), the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and two violations of Article 6 § 1.      In the judgment delivered today, the Court noted that the parties had reached an agreement. As this agreement was a fair one, the Court considered that it was no longer justified to maintain the application. It therefore decided to strike the case out of its list. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Amato v. Turkey (no. 58771/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Selim Amato, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in İzmir.   The case concerned proceedings in which Mr Amato’s request for compensation on account of the unlawful demolition of his house had been refused.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Amato complained that he had not received compensation for his house which had been demolished without his prior notification. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) about the length and unfairness of the legal proceedings.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained. Mr Amato was awarded EUR 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. The Court further held that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Baz and Others v. Turkey (no. 76106/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Abdulkadir Baz, Sedrettin Dinar, Mahrem Bulut, Mehmet Akbalık, Tahsin   Aktaş and Yusuf Sebuk, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1984, 1970, 1964, 1958, 1962 and 1961, respectively. They live in Diyarbakır.   In 2001, on various dates, the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of their involvement in PKK activities.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained that their arrest had been unjustified, that the length of their detention in police custody lasting ten days in August 2001 (except for Mr Sebuk whose detention lasted two days) had been excessive and that they had not been brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning all the applicants except Mr Sebuk. The Court awarded MM. Baz, Dinar, Bulut, Akbalık and Aktaş EUR 3,000, each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Çiçek and Öztemel and 6 other cases v. Turkey (nos. 74069/01, 74703/01, 76380/01, 16809/02, 25710/02, 25714/02 and 30383/02) The applicants, Abbas Baran, Bayram Ceylan, Mehmet Cihat Aydın,   Ali Ağın, Mustafa Yağmur,   Hasan Buğa,   Fuat Albayrak,   Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu, Enver Askan, Hamdusela Ekinci, İnayet Çiçek, Necat Öztemel, Nusret Atlı, Musa Narin, Şaban Canpolat, Mehmet Fikri Yıldırım and Salih Kömekçi are all Turkish nationals. They live in Diyarbakır.   The cases concerned the failure by the Turkish authorities to pay judgment debts following proceedings in which the applicants claimed, in particular, outstanding salaries and severance pay.   They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court considered that MM. Yağmur, Ekinci and Atlı, who had expressed a clear intent to discontinue their applications, could no longer claim victim status and struck out those parts of the application filed by MM. Yağmur and Ekinci as well as the application filed by Mr   Atlı.   The Court held, unanimously, with respect to the remainder of the applicants, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lengthy non-enforcement or only part enforcement of judgments in their favour.   The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of MM. Ceylan, Aydın, Ağın, Albayrak,   Hüseyinoğlu, Askan, Canpolat and Kömekçi. It declared that complaint inadmissible with regard to the rest of the applicants, who had reached friendly settlement agreements with the municipality.   The Court held unanimously that, where applicable, Turkey should pay the applicants the judgment debts still owed to them, plus statutory interest applicable under domestic law. The sums awarded to the applicants under Article 41 can be found at the end of the judgment. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Dursun v. Turkey (no. 17765/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Ali Dursun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul.   In July 1992 Mr Dursun was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. He was sentenced to life imprisonment but, that judgment having been quashed, Mr Dursun was released pending trial in December 2004. The case is apparently still pending.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Dursun complained about the length of his pre-trial detention and the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s detention pending trial which had lasted approximately 11 years and three months. It further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings which had so far lasted more than 14 years and eight months. Mr Dursun was awarded EUR   12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Emir v. Turkey (no. 10054/03)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, İlyas Emir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Istanbul. He is the editor of the quarterly magazine Güney Kültür- Sanat- Edebiyat dergisi (“South, review of culture, art and literature”).   In June 2002 Istanbul State Security Court sentenced the applicant to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, which was commuted to a fine of about EUR 4,753; it also ordered the closure of the magazine in question for seven days and the destruction of 120 copies, which had been seized previously. The applicant was accused of having published several articles criticising police intervention in prisons and of having disseminated propaganda for the illegal organisation DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party /Front). In July 2003 the Security Court lifted the fine.   The applicant alleged that his criminal conviction, the seizure of the magazine and the latter's closure for a week had infringed his right to freedom of expression. He relied in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the grounds given in the decisions of the Turkish courts could not in themselves be considered sufficient to justify the interference in the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000   for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ern Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 70830/01)   The applicant, Ern Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A. Ş., is a Turkish company.   The applicant company complained that it had been unable to take part in enforcement proceedings concerning it because the Turkish courts had sent the notification of those proceedings to its former registered office. It relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 and awarded the applicant company EUR 3,000   for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kar and Others v. Turkey (no. 58756/00)   Violation of Article 10 The applicants, Nazmi Kar, Zekeriya Özen, Fuat Başarılı and Osman Yavuz, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972, 1969, 1969 and 1968, respectively. They all live in Turkey.   Between March and April 1997 the applicants held roles as actors in a play, “An enemy of Justice”, which was staged on eight occasions in a number of towns and cities in Turkey. Much media coverage was devoted to the play, some newspapers even citing provisions of the Criminal Code which the applicants had supposedly breached. The applicants were arrested at the end of April 1997 and taken into police custody. Ultimately, they were convicted in May 1999 of “incitement to hatred or hostility on the basis of a distinction between social classes, race, religion, denominations or region” and were each sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment as well as payment of a fine. Taking into account the time the applicants had already spent in prison, they were released.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against them. They further complained about the media’s coverage of the play which had been in breach of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and alleged that Turkish legislation had prevented them from having access to their lawyers during the first four days of their police custody, in breach of Article 6 § 3 (c). Finally, they alleged that their conviction and sentence amounted to a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of Ankara State Security Court which had tried and convicted the applicants and that there was no need to examine the remaining complaints under that article.   The Court observed that Article 10 included freedom of artistic expression and that that freedom applied not only to “information” or “ideas” which were favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those which offended, shocked or disturbed. Given the latter and the fact that the play had only been staged eight times and had limited potential impact, the Court concluded that the applicants’ convictions and especially the harshness of their sentences, had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   10.   The applicants were awarded EUR 10,000, each, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Koşti and Others v. Turkey (no. 74321/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Osman Koşti, Mehmet Koşti and Hışman Öngör, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1981, 1983 and 1981, respectively. They live in Şanlıurfa (Turkey).   In February 1999 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of having been involved in throwing Molotov cocktails at various public buildings.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about their detention on remand and the length of the criminal proceedings.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the applicants, particularly given their young age, having been detained on remand for over two years and three months. Noting the complexity of the case and the number of accused, the Court did not find that the proceedings having taken two years and seven months at two levels of jurisdiction had been excessive and therefore held, unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. The applicants were awarded EUR 3,000, each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kapar v. Turkey (no. 7328/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Murat Kaçar v. Turkey (no. 32420/03)     Medeni Kavak v. Turkey (no. 13723/02)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 4 and 5 Sinan Tanrıkulu and Others v. Turkey (no. 50086/99) Violation of Article 5 §§ 2, 3, 4 and 5   In the above four cases, the nine applicants are all Turkish citizens who live in Diyarbakır, with the exception of Mr Kacar, who lives in Istanbul. In the case of Sinan Tanrıkulu and Others , the six applicants are all lawyers.   The applicants were arrested on account of their presumed membership of an illegal organisation, with the exception of Mr Kacar who was arrested on suspicion of having committed armed robbery.   Mr Kaçar and Mr Kapar complained, in particular, about the length of their pre-trial detention (namely four years and six months in Mr Kaçar’s case and one year and seven months in Mr Kapar’s case) and of the proceedings brought against them (more than ten years and four months to date for Mr Kaçar and more than five years and ten months to date for Mr Kapar).   In the case of Sinan Tanrıkulu and Others , the applicants complained, in particular, about the length of their detention in police custody (namely five to six days), the lawfulness of their detention and the lack of a remedy to contest its lawfulness and obtain compensation. Mr Kavak complained about the lawfulness of his detention and the fact that it was impossible to challenge that detention and obtain a right to compensation.   All the applicants relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security). In the Kaçar and Kapar cases, the applicants also relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   In the Kaçar and Kapar cases, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1; it also held that it was unnecessary to examine separately Mr Kaçar’s complaint under Article 6 § 2. The Court awarded Mr Kapar EUR 4,500   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500   for costs and expenses, and awarded Mr Kaçar EUR 10,   000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses.   In the Medeni Kavak case, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 4 and 5 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,500   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses, less the EUR 715   received from the Council of Europe in legal aid.   In the case of Sinan Tanrıkulu and Others , the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 2, 3, 4 and 5 (except in respect of Mr Tosun, whose complaint under Article 5 § 2 was declared inadmissible by the Court). The Court awarded Mr Tosun EUR 500   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 to each of the other applicants. It also awarded the six applicants EUR 1,000   jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     No violation of Article 3   No violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 Soysal v. Turkey (no. 50091/99)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Mr Soysal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lived in Odunkirschen (Germany) at the relevant time. He is currently imprisoned in Turkey.   The applicant was arrested on 13 July 1999 in Chisinau, Moldova, under an international arrest warrant on suspicion of being one of the leaders of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). That same evening he was placed in police custody in the premises of the MIT (the national intelligence service: Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı ). The following morning he underwent a health check, which ascertained that he was suffering from acute pharyngitis and extreme fatigue; the doctors noted that the applicant was slightly cachectic and carried the Hepatitis B virus. They also noted the existence of “wounds and traumatic ecchymosis in the frontal left axillary region, on the front of the right shoulder and on the lower section of the right knee”.   During his detention, the applicant was examined on several occasions by general practitioners and specialists; he received treatment, in particular for hepatitis, and was taken into hospital three times.   The applicant lodged a complaint alleging torture against those responsible for his detention in police custody. In November 1999 that complaint resulted in a finding that there was no case to answer.   In December 2002 Mr Soysal was sentenced to 18 years and nine months’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in police custody. He also complained that his detention had been unlawful and improper. He relied, in particular, on Articles 3 (prohibition of degrading or inhuman treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security).   No evidence had been produced before the Court to arouse reasonable suspicions that the members of the MIT or the police officers concerned had inflicted on the applicant the ill-treatment of which he complained and/or to raise doubts concerning the manner in which the Turkish judicial authorities had acted in this case, especially with regard to the treatment provided to the applicant. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3.   In addition, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 §§   1 and 2. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in that the applicant had not been brought promptly before a judge following his arrest. It also concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the absence of a remedy that would have enabled the applicant to have the lawfulness of his police custody examined, and held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the other complaints. The Court held that its judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey (no. 34797/03)   Violation of Article 10 The 12 applicants are all Turkish residents who live in Istanbul. They are actors in the theatre troupe “ Teatra Jiyana nü ” (“New Life Theatre” in Kurdish).   In December 1999 the Ankara Regional Governor’s Office refused to authorise the troupe, which was on tour, to perform a Kurdish play, “ Komara Dinan Sermola ” (“Republic of Madmen”) in Ankara.   The applicants brought administrative proceedings seeking to have the refusal overturned. The Regional Governor's Office informed the administrative court that the play in question was liable to undermine public order, given the criminal records of the actors, who had been convicted or prosecuted for their activities in support of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).   The proceedings ended with the dismissal of their request by the Supreme Administrative Court on 27 January 2003.   The applicants alleged that the prohibition placed on their performance of the play in question had entailed, in particular, a violation of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court noted that the ban on staging the play amounted to an interference in the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. This interference was in accordance with Turkish legislation and had the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime.   With regard to the necessity of the interference, the Court considered that, even if it was accepted that the refusal was primarily justified by a potential threat to public order on account of the artists’ criminal records, the reasoning in the judgment delivered by the administrative court gave the impression that the use of the Kurdish language in the staging of a play constituted a circumstance that could aggravate potential disorder.   In the Court’s opinion, Turkish legislation did not indicate with sufficient clarity the extent of the authorities’ discretion in the field of prior restrictions on the presentation of an artistic work and prohibitions on the use of a language other than Turkish in theatre plays, or the manner in which that discretion was to be exercised. Accordingly, the Court found that the disputed interference could not be considered   “necessary in a democratic society”.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the other complaints. It awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,000   for non-pecuniary damage and awarded them EUR 2,000 jointly for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Yalım v. Turkey (no. 40533/98)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Mecit Yalım, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979.   The applicant, who was suspected of belonging to the PKK, was arrested and placed in police custody in January 1994. In June 1998 he was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention (namely more than four years and six months), the fact that the trial court was neither independent nor impartial and alleged that there had been a breach of his defence rights.   The case has been struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive EUR 3,500. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 7577/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Mariya Ivanivna Bochan, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1917 and lives in Ternopil (Ukraine).   The case concerned the unfairness of proceedings relating to a civil law dispute in connection with the title to part of a house and the accompanying land.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, Mrs Bochan complained that the courts had not been independent and impartial, had failed to provide sufficient reasons for their decisions and had not allowed her to question witnesses on whose written statements the decisions had been based.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unfairness of the proceedings and that it was unnecessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Mrs Bochan was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Pasanec v. Croatia (no. 41567/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Milka Pasanec, is a Croatian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Velika Gorica (Croatia).   The case concerned proceedings in which Mrs Pasanec, having relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act, had sought damages from the State for injuries she had suffered in 1991 when she had been the victim of a shooting. The proceedings were stayed on 18   September 1997 under the 1996 Amendment to the Act. They resumed only after the new legislation had entered into force in July 2003.   Following a constitutional complaint, on 28 June 2004 it was found that the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and right of access to a court had been violated. It ordered the first-instance court to give a decision in the applicant’s case within a year and awarded her compensation.   The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 (access to court) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) that the enactment of the 1996 Amendment had violated her right of access to a court. She argued, in particular, that the amount of compensation had been insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases.   The Court found that the redress made to the applicant could not be regarded as adequate and sufficient and that she could therefore still claim to be a victim of a violation of her right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Sobelin and Others v. Russia (nos. 30672/03, 30673/03, 30678/03, 30682/03, 30692/03, 30707/03, 30713/03, 30734/03, 30736/03, 30779/03, 32080/03 and 34952/03) The 12 applicants are Russian nationals. In May 2005 one of the applicants, Mr   Stepanenko, died. The Court allowed his widow to pursue the application in his place.   The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The applicants 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), the applicants complained about the quashing under supervisory review procedure of judgments declaring reductions in their monthly benefits to be unlawful. They also complained about the non-enforcement of those judgments.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the quashing of the judgments by way of supervisory review, and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   As the applicants had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make an award in that connection. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Aydın and Şengül v. Turkey (no. 75845/01) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Necati Aydın and Ercan Şengül, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1962, respectively. They live in İzmir.   The case concerned the alleged unfairness of compensation proceedings before Izmir Assize Court and the authorities' delay in settling the resulting amounts awarded to the applicants.   They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 regarding the delay in payment of compensation and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Gülşen and Others v. Turkey (no. 54902/00) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The seven applicants are Turkish nationals.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained about delays in the payment of additional compensation awarded to them for the expropriation of their property. They also complained that they had been paid insufficient interest at a time when inflation in Turkey had been very high.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants sums in respect of pecuniary damage totalling EUR 533,300. No claim was made for non-pecuniary damage or for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Gündoğdu v. Turkey (no. 49240/99)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mehmet Şerıf Aslan v. Turkey (no. 6201/00)   The applicants are Turkish nationals who were born in 1980 and 1961 respectively.     The applicants complained, in particular, about the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security courts which had convicted them and sentenced them to prison terms on account of their membership of illegal organisations. They relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   The Court concluded unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 as regards the complaint relating to the independence and impartiality of the state security courts and held that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints under Article 6. It also held that its judgments in these cases constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 630   received by Mr Gündoğdu from the Council of Europe in legal aid.   (The judgments are available only in French.)   İrfan Bayrak v. Turkey (no. 39429/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, İrfan Bayrak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Turkey. At the relevant time he was a sergeant in the Turkish army.   In July 1997 the disciplinary tribunal of the third border regiment imposed two penalties of 30 and 45 days of cellular confinement for having fallen asleep while he on duty in a surveillance position during a transfrontier operation in Iraq.   The applicant complained, in particular, that the military disciplinary tribunal was not an independent and impartial tribunal. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that its judgment in the case constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Seçkin and Others v. Turkey (no. 56016/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Burak Seçkin, Hakan Kocaoğlu and Uğur Erdoğan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1981, 1979 and 1979, respectively. They live in Samsun (Turkey).   In 1996 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on account of an investigation into the activities of an illegal organisation. It resulted in their conviction and imprisonment, the first applicant for one year, ten months and 15 days and the second and third applicants for two years and six months.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained that the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair, that they had been deprived of their right to legal assistance while in police custody and that Ankara State Security Court, not having taken into account their ages, had not adhered to procedures for juveniles.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court which had convicted the applicants, and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained. The Court further held, unanimously, that there was no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article   6. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Yalçın v. Turkey (no. 8628/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Emcet Yalçın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Mardin (Turkey). In December 2001 he was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for membership of Hezbollah.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation had not been communicated to him.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As the applicant had made no claim in respect of just satisfaction, the Court considered that it was not necessary to make an award under this head. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Koval and Patsyora v. Ukraine (nos. 1110/02 and 1206/02) The applicants, Olga Mykolayivna Koval and Alla Oleksandrivna Patsyora, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1964 and 1952, respectively. They live in Rozdilna (Ukraine).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained that judgments given in their favour had not been enforced in good time.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 13. The Court held that the State should pay the applicants the judgment debts still owed to them, and awarded them EUR   2,000, each, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is 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. The applicant in the case of Grzinčič v. Slovenia also complained under Article   13 that he had had no “effective remedy” concerning his length-of-proceedings complaint. The remainder of the applicants’ complaints were declared inadmissible.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kostova v. Bulgaria (no. 76763/01) Parashkevanova v. Bulgaria (no. 72855/01) Chrysochoou v. Greece (no. 10953/05) Papadogeorgos v. Greece (no. 18700/05) Bakonyi v. Hungary (no. 45311/05) Hélioplán Kft v. Hungary (no. 30077/03) Özden v. Turkey (no. 11841/02) Özden v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 31487/02) Türküler and Others v. Turkey (no. 12974/03)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Grzinčič v. Slovenia (no. 26867/02)   Violation of Article 13     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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 Convention.