CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 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 } .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 } .sDC6FEE0F { width:36.85pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s2D232A8A { width:37.48pt; display:inline-block } .s51C4CFB0 { width:200.25pt; display:inline-block } .s8EB0E2BB { width:196.88pt; display:inline-block } .sAB5A4959 { width:17.38pt; display:inline-block } .s320ECF20 { width:74.11pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .sE4F7B1B { width:78.82pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s191E607D { width:163.48pt; display:inline-block } .sAF1A2C81 { width:70.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC285ED2 { width:89.47pt; display:inline-block } .sE933DEF6 { width:76.77pt; display:inline-block } .s8D844FA2 { width:253.58pt; display:inline-block } .s6066DECA { width:252.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA7EEBE9A { width:154.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6640CFD3 { width:46.16pt; display:inline-block } .s622132F { width:159.49pt; display:inline-block } .sEB79EDC3 { width:139.46pt; display:inline-block } .s59553EE6 { width:140.85pt; display:inline-block } .s8E007A25 { width:327.58pt; display:inline-block } .s35E1893 { width:180.23pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s6BFFF153 { width:147.5pt; display:inline-block } .s2F35E82D { width:26.8pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA2D3AABE { width:24.14pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s2342A031 { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s34DE83B3 { width:55.48pt; 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   295 10.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 29 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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Emmer-Reissig v. Austria (application no 11032/04) Hofbauer v. Austria (No. 2) (no. 7401/04) Both applicants are Austrian nationals. Herwig C. Emmer-Reissig was born in 1921 and lives in Klosterneuburg and Alois Hofbauer was born in 1935 and lives in Gföhl.   Mr Emmer-Reissig’s application concerned proceedings in which he had requested a building permit.   Mr Hofbauer’s application concerned his request for a demolition order of his neighbour’s fence.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they both complained about the administrative courts’ refusal to hold an oral hearing. Mr   Emmer-Reissig further complained under the same article about the authorities’ refusal to hear evidence from certain experts on agriculture and organic farming.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that in both cases there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the lack of an oral hearing before the administrative court. The Court held by four votes to three that it was unnecessary to examine Mr Emmer-Reissig’s further complaint under Article 6.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage Mr Hofbauer may have sustained and awarded him 1,331.90 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. The Court made no award for just satisfaction, as Mr Emmer-Reissig had not submitted a claim. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Kushoglu v. Bulgaria (no. 48191/99)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Ayten Kushoglu and Mehmet Kushoglu, have both Bulgarian and Turkish nationality. They were born in 1958 and 1956, respectively, and live in Malkara (Turkey).   The applicants lived in Bulgaria until the summer of 1989, when the authorities at the time forced tens of thousands of ethnic Turks, among them the applicants, to emigrate. Before leaving, the applicants sold their property to the municipality.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention and Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained that they had been denied their right to recover their house despite a judgment by the Supreme Court in January 1995 declaring null and void the 1989 transaction. In particular, they alleged that decisions rejecting their restitution claims had been arbitrary.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6. The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sirmanov v. Bulgaria (no. 67353/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Nikolay Tsonev Sirmanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Gabrovo (Bulgaria).   In February 1990 Mr Sirmanov was convicted of a criminal offence which he had allegedly committed during his probationary period following early release from prison. As a result, he was sentenced to serve the remainder of the prison sentence from his prior conviction, which he did. In May 1994 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and a decision, which became final in June 1999, was made to award the applicant compensation for unlawful imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Mr   Sirmanov complained that Bulgaria had failed to comply with the final judgment in his favour and that he had been prevented from using the amount owed to him.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment) Stefan Iliev v. Bulgaria (no. 53121/99) Violation of Article 3 (inadequate investigation) The applicant, Stefan Milanov Iliev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Sofia.   On 19 December 1996, Mr Iliev, aged 72 at the time, was detained by two police officers for disturbing the peace in front of the Bulgarian national television building. When being taken to that building’s security guard duty room by the police officers, the applicant, who admitted to having shown some resistance, alleged that he had been beaten repeatedly with a truncheon. The police officers claimed that the applicant was aggressive on being detained but that they had not used special measures to subdue him. Mr Iliev, who had been drinking, was transferred to the Sofia police sobering-up centre and discharged the next day with a warning. On the day of his release, a doctor noted in a medical report that the applicant had suffered injuries to his hands as a result of having been beaten with hard blunt objects. In March 1997 the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office refused, due to lack of evidence, to open a preliminary investigation into Mr Iliev’s allegations of ill-treatment.   Mr Illiev relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The Court observed that the injuries sustained by the applicant were of a type consistent with having been beaten by truncheons. No other convincing or satisfactory explanation as to how they had occurred having been put forward, the Court considered that those injuries had been the result of treatment for which the Bulgarian authorities had been responsible. However, the Court noted that the applicant had been inebriated and showed some resistance to the police officers. Given that the injuries had been limited to his hands and had not been particularly excessive, the Court did not consider them to be sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. Accordingly, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 3 regarding the allegations of ill-treatment.   The Court considered that, despite the reasonable suspicion that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by the police, the Prosecutor’s Office had entirely ignored medical evidence and had reached conclusions mainly based on statements of the accused police officers. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints.   Mr Iliev was awarded EUR 750 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 and   3 (d) (fairness) A.H. v. Finland (no. 46602/99) The applicant is a Finnish national who was born in 1960.   The case concerned the alleged unfairness of proceedings relating to the applicant’s conviction for sexual abuse of a six-year-old boy and for which he was sentenced to a suspended seven months’ prison sentence.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), he alleged that the police had failed to give him an opportunity to put questions to the victim.   Given that the applicant had not been given the opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to put questions to the victim and that the only direct evidence implicating the applicant had been the victim’s videotaped statements, the Court found that the use of evidence restricted the rights of the defence. It could not therefore be said that the applicant had received a fair trial and the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (d). The applicant was awarded EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Seris v. France (nos. 38208/03 and 2810/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Bruno Seris, is a French national who was born in 1965 and lives in Mitry-Mory (France).   After a dispute with his neighbours, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against them and applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. He was granted legal aid in May 2002 and in August 2003 a lawyer was appointed to assist him.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained in particular of the delay in the appointment of his assigned counsel.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage (The judgment is available only in French.)   Tedesco v. France (no. 11950/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Jean-Olivier Tedesco, is a French national who was born in 1959 and lives in Brussels.   He is the Chairman of the limited company RMR International, which in the late eighties was involved in the “Rhenania 2000” project (to promote audiovisual production in Alsace and Strasbourg). In connection with the auditing of the Alsace Regional Council’s accounts for the financial years 1987 to 1991, the Audit Commission for Alsace and the French Audit Court delivered a number of judgments.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant argued that the proceedings before the Regional Audit Commission and the Audit Court had been unfair.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the presence of both the Rapporteur and the Government Commissioner at the deliberation of the Regional Audit Commission. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant may have sustained and awarded him EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 8 Skugor v. Germany (no. 76680/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Alexander Skugor, is a German national who was born in 1964 and lives in Berlin.   Between September 1994 and February 1998 the applicant suffered seven psychotic episodes, which required intensive medical treatment and partly necessitated confinement in a psychiatric hospital. By a judicial decision of 1997, upheld in 1998, the applicant was prohibited from having contact with his children.   In 1998 the applicant brought proceedings seeking to obtain a right of contact in respect of his children. His application was dismissed by the competent courts on the ground that it was not in the children’s interest to allow contact and that the applicant was not entitled to exercise such a right until he had taken the necessary steps to obtain treatment. Since the autumn of 2003 he has resumed contact with his children and sees them occasionally. Moreover, he unsuccessfully applied to be granted parental responsibility.   The applicant alleged that the refusal to grant him a right of contact with his children for three years had breached Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. He further complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), about the length of the proceedings at issue, namely some three years and ten months for the decision on the right of contact and some three years and five months for the decision on parental responsibility.   The Court noted in particular that the temporary measure imposed on the applicant prohibiting him from seeing his children had been taken in their interest and had been compliant with Article 8 of the Convention. Moreover, the decision-making process, when considered as a whole, had afforded to the applicant the requisite protection of his interests. In those circumstances the Court found unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8.   However, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the length of the proceedings concerning the right of contact, but that there had been no violation of that Article as regards the length of the parental responsibility proceedings.   By way of just satisfaction the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Anastasiadis v. Greece (no. 39725/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Ilias Anastasiadis, Agelos Anastasiadis and Vasilios Anastasiadis, are Greek nationals.   They were the owners of about 450 sq. m of land near the town of Kalamata that in 1981 was declared by the State to be part of the public shoreland. As the State claimed ownership of the land, the applicants brought proceedings seeking to obtain the compensation fixed by the courts for its expropriation.   The applicants complained of the length of the proceedings through which they sought recognition as joint owners (14 years and more than one month) and of their inability to use the land in question during that period. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants jointly EUR 85,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   John v. Greece (no. 199/05)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 The applicant, Denis John, is a Nigerian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Lagos (Nigeria).   On 29 December 2003 he was arrested as an illegal entrant on his arrival at Athens airport and detained pending removal. His release was ordered on 29 March 2003, the maximum period of detention – three months - laid down by the relevant legislation having expired. However, while he was still at the police station where he had been held, he was again arrested by police officers. His detention was extended until 20 June 2004, when he was removed to Nigeria.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant alleged that his period of detention had been extended illegally, in breach of the three-month time-limit laid down by Greek law.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the illegal extension of the applicant’s detention, and awarded him EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pantaleon v. Greece (no. 6571/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Evangelos Pantaleon, is a Greek national who was born in 1927 and lives in Athens.   He complained of a delay by the authorities in complying with a judgment of the Audit Court that had been given in his favour concerning his claim to a war pension. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant may have sustained and awarded him EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Kania v. Poland (no. 59444/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Dariusz Kania, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Wrocław (Poland).   In 1970 Mr Kania had an accident at his primary school in which he lost the sight in his right eye.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Kania complained that he had been denied access to a court because of the excessive amount of court fees he had been required to pay at the cassation stage in order to proceed with his claim for an increase in his invalidity pension and compensation for further deterioration in his health.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Mr   Kania was awarded EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kovalev v. Russia (no. 78145/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich Kovalev, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Aksay (Russia).   In August 2001 Mr Kovalev was found guilty of being a member of an organised armed gang and of two armed robberies and was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. His wife brought a civil claim on his behalf claiming that her husband had been unlawfully arrested and ill-treated when arrested.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Kovalev complained that he had not been summoned to a hearing of the case concerning his alleged ill-treatment by the police.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Mr   Kovalev was awarded EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 3 (treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Atıcı v. Turkey (no. 19735/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Müseyin Atıcı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.   In 1992 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation for which he was convicted in May 2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment. That judgment was subsequently quashed and the case is, apparently, still pending.   On transfer from one prison to another and from prison to hospital Mr Atıcı complained about having being strip-searched and, on resisting, having been put into solitary confinement. He further complained about the length of his detention on remand which lasted for more than ten years, and the lack of an effective investigation into his complaints.   He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Concluding that the evidence had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Atıcı had been subjected to ill-treatment, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 as regards the alleged body searches and conditions of detention. It did, however, find that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into Mr Atıcı’s allegations of ill-treatment. The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   Mr Atıcı was awarded EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kamil Uzun v. Turkey (no. 37410/97)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation) The applicant, Kamil Uzun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Frankfurt (Germany). At the material time his parents were living in the Hasköy neighbourhood, 5 km from the centre of Yayladere, in Bingöl district, situated in the region where a state of emergency had been declared and where serious clashes between security forces and members of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) were rife.   On 16 September 1994, at around midnight, a mortar shell landed on the house of a neighbour of the applicant’s parents. Shrapnel from the shell was projected towards the house next door and struck the applicant’s mother on the head and neck. She died from her injuries within half an hour.   The applicant’s father lodged a criminal complaint that very morning. Gendarmes arrived at the scene, drew a sketch of the premises and assessed the damage to buildings. Witnesses subsequently stated, among other things, that they had taken away pieces of mortar shell. The victim’s body was exhumed for an autopsy in June 1996.   In November 1996 two gendarmes were charged with abuse of authority, in particular for having failed to transmit the victims’ complaints to the public prosecutor’s office, for having precipitated the interment before an autopsy could be performed and for having caused the disappearance of pieces of shrapnel collected by the gendarmes. In 1999 they were found guilty of misusing their authority and perverting the course of justice but there was a stay on the execution of their sentence.   The investigation into the death of Mrs Uzun is still pending to date and has not been successful in identifying the person or people responsible for the death.   Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complained that the military authorities were responsible for the mortar fire that killed his mother.   The Court considered that the origin and context of the mortar fire gave rise to legitimate doubts. However, those doubts could not in themselves justify the existence of a presumption that Mrs Uzun had been the victim of intentional fire or of a blunder attributable to the local gendarmerie. The Court thus found that, despite its concerns, the material before it did not allow it to conclude, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the applicant’s mother had been killed by members of the armed forces.   Moreover, the Court observed in particular that throughout the initial stage of the investigation there had been a complete overlap between those presumed to be responsible for the incident and those investigating, all of them being attached to the local gendarmerie and in particular that of Yayladere. The conduct of the investigating gendarmes had ultimately had the effect of removing the preliminary investigation from public and judicial scrutiny and, furthermore, of preventing those really responsible from being identified and called to account.   The Turkish Government had provided no concrete information on the status of the investigation, which, more than 12 years after the event, did not seem to have made any credible progress or to have produced any tangible results, thus confirming the atmosphere of impunity and insecurity that had prevailed at the time in the region.   In those circumstances the Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   2 as regards the investigation carried out into the death of the applicant’s mother and held that it was not necessary to examine his other complaints. In respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR 5,000 to the applicant and EUR 15,000 to the victim’s other heirs. It also awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Üstün v. Turkey (no. 37685/02)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Saim Üstün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul.   At the relevant time, Mr Üstün was the owner of a small independent publication firm. In 1992 his firm published a book about the life and political views of the left-wing revolutionary cinema artist Yılmaz Güney.   The case concerned the criminal proceedings brought against Mr Üstün in October 2000 for disseminating separatist propaganda. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, later commuted to a fine. He was subsequently acquitted and the conviction annulled.   He relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found that the passages highlighted by the prosecution had not encouraged violence, armed resistance or insurrection and had not amounted to hate speech. Noting that Mr Üstün had remained convicted for over a year and had to pay a fine in order to avoid the prison sentence, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been disproportionate to the aims pursued and had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded the applicant EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Vurankaya v. Turkey (no. 9613/03)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Oktay Vurankaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Adana (Turkey).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him for forgery of official documents (over eight years and six months to date) and about the absence of a remedy under Turkish law by which to submit such a complaint.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage together with EUR   850 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   C. v. United Kingdom (no. 14858/03)   Friendly settlement The applicant is a British national who was born in 1957 and lives in Plymouth (United Kingdom). He cohabited and had two children with S, who also had two children from previous relationships.   From 1995 the family had a long history of involvement with social workers. In November 2001 the children were removed from their parents and in April 2002 adoption was recommended as being in the children’s best interest.   Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about his children having been taken away and their freeing for adoption.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR   40,000 is to be paid to the three children and held in trust, and a further 15,000 pounds sterling (GBP) (approximately EUR   22,005) is to be paid for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 14 Runkee and White v. United Kingdom (nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99) The applicants, George Runkee and Brian White, are British nationals who live in the United Kingdom. Mr Runkee was born in 1938 and lives in Hull. He was widowed on 15 March 1998. Mr White was born in 1942 and lives in Warrington. He was widowed on 8 March 1999.   Relying on 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that, as men, they were not entitled to receive widows’ benefits (Widow’s Pension and Widow’s Payment) equivalent to those available to comparable bereaved women.   This was the first case in which the Court had decided on the question of whether non-payment of a Widow’s Pension to men was discriminatory.   Widow’s Pension, at its origin and until its abolition on 9 April 2001 (except for women whose spouses had died before that date), was intended to correct inequality between older widows, as a group, and the rest of the population. The Court considered that difference to have been reasonably and objectively justified. Given the slowly evolving nature of the change in women’s working lives and the impossibility of pinpointing a precise date at which older widows as a class had no longer been in need of help, the Court did not consider that the United Kingdom could be criticised either for not having abolished the pension earlier. It followed that the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in connection with non-entitlement to a Widow’s Pension.   However, as in similar cases raising the same issue under the Convention, the Court decided, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning non-entitlement to a Widow’s Payment.   It further held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to consider either complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8.   The Court awarded EUR 2,025 to Mr Runkee and EUR   1,870 to Mr White in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR   2,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. (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:     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Mazepa v. Moldova (no. 1115/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Nina Mazepa, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău.   Ms Mazepa complained that a final judgment given in her favour concerning compensation for damage to her house had not been enforced for almost three years, at which time it was quashed. The proceedings were subsequently reopened. She further complained that the length (almost five years) of the proceedings had been excessive and that she had had no effective remedy in respect of her complaints.   She relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   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 failure to enforce the final judgment, and a further violation of Article 6 § 1 as a result of the excessive length of proceedings following the reopening of her case. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 due to the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicant’s complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment and the length of proceedings. The remainder of the complaints were declared inadmissible.   Mrs Mazepa was awarded EUR 2,900 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Glushakova v. Russia (No. 2) (no. 23287/05) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Valentina Viktorovna Glushakova, is a Russian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Shakhty (Russia).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complained about the non-enforcement of a judgment given in her favour.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that Russia should secure the enforcement of the award made by the domestic courts in Ms Glushakova’s favour. In addition, she was awarded 184,800 Russian roubles (RUR) (approximately EUR   5,275) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   125 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sergey Petrov v. Russia (no. 1861/05)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Sergey Mikhaylovich Petrov, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow. He is a retired military officer.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the quashing of a judgment in his favour concerning the recalculation of his pension by way of supervisory review.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded Mr Petrov EUR 2,500 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and RUR 2,880 (approximately EUR   82) for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)                 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Adil Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 36531/02) Taci and Eroğlu v. Turkey (no. 18367/04)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Mehmet Ali Miçooğulları v. Turkey (no. 75606/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 1   In these three Turkish cases the applicants owned land in Samandağ. The registration of their property was annulled at the request of the State Treasury.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that they had been deprived of their property without being paid any compensation. Mr Miçooğulları also relied on Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the lack of reasoning in the decisions of the Turkish courts.   The Court held unanimously in all three cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that there had been no violation of Article   6 § 1 in the case of Mehmet Ali Miçooğulları . It considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicants might have sustained and awarded them the amounts indicated in euros in the table below.     Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Adil Özdemir v. Turkey 35,000 500 Mehmet Ali Miçooğulları v. Turkey 15,000 380 Taci and Eroğlu v. Turkey 25,000 500   Taşatan v. Turkey (no. 60580/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Cevdet Taşatan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Istanbul.   Relying on under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Taşatan complained that additional compensation awarded following the expropriation of his property had been too low, had not been paid in full or in good time. He further alleged that the interest he had received had been insufficient.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the authorities’ continued failure to pay the total amount of compensation and the damage sustained by Mr Taşatan as a result of late payment. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage and awarded Mr Taşatan EUR 4,330 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gospodinov v. Bulgaria (no. 62722/00) Wende and Kukówka v. Poland (no. 56026/00)   ***   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.