CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 juillet 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 } .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 } .s7CC8DF82 { width:181.56pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBAA57C7 { width:203.5pt; display:inline-block } .sB5E1FE81 { width:84.15pt; display:inline-block } .s3EA915C4 { width:83.5pt; display:inline-block } .s6B5B1613 { width:96.17pt; display:inline-block } .sFDD7BB31 { width:28.61pt; display:inline-block } .s370D413D { width:136.15pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s570D6F30 { width:40.79pt; display:inline-block } .s69059758 { width:156.83pt; display:inline-block } .sCEE9C3B7 { width:56.84pt; display:inline-block } .s5B9F672B { width:120.81pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sDBD7EC4F { width:133.45pt; display:inline-block } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .sC9D8759E { width:117.46pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s430FA34A { width:78.81pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sAA0933DF { width:170.16pt; display:inline-block } .s9BEB1EC8 { width:244.88pt; display:inline-block } .s8422F4C { width:152.83pt; display:inline-block } .s927A020D { width:176.91pt; 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   517 17.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 26 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) and (fairness) F and M v. Finland (application no. 22508/02)   The applicants, F and M, are Finnish nationals who were born in 1953 and 1950, respectively. They have a daughter, D, born in 1984.   D’s father was convicted and sentenced to a suspended prison sentence in October 1998 for sexually abusing his daughter following statements she had made in 1991 to a psychologist.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against F and the fact that D had not been heard during the proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the proceedings having lasted almost six years and two months for three levels of jurisdiction. The Court further found that F had not been given the opportunity at any stage to put questions to his daughter and that the only evidence implicating him had been the statements she had made to a psychologist in 1991 which had not been video-recorded or taped. Therefore the Court held that there had been a further violation of the same article taken together with Article 6 § 3 (d). The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The Court awarded F 4,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Bukta and Others v. Hungary (no. 25691/04)   Violation of Article 11 The applicants, Dénesné Bukta, Ferdinánd Laczner and Jánosné Tölgyesi, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1943, 1945 and 1951, respectively. They live in Budapest.   On 1 December 2002 the Romanian Prime Minister made an official visit to Budapest and gave a reception at the Hotel Kempinski to celebrate Romania’s national day, notably the annexation in 1918 of Transylvania, formerly part of Hungary, to Romania. The day before, the Hungarian Prime Minister declared that he would attend the reception. The applicants believed that he should not attend an event commemorating a negative part of Hungarian history. Approximately 150 persons, including the applicants, gathered in front of the hotel whilst the reception was taking place to demonstrate. They had not given the police any warning of their demonstration despite the legal requirement to give three day’s notice. On hearing a noise like a detonation, the police, who were present anyway, forced the demonstrators to disperse. The applicants brought proceedings in which they requested that the police’s intervention be declared unlawful. Those proceedings were, ultimately, dismissed on the ground that the demonstration had been disbanded due to the fact that the police had not been informed about the demonstration.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly), the applicants complained that their peaceful demonstration had been disbanded only because the police had not had prior notification.   The Court noted that the domestic courts had not examined whether the demonstration had been peaceful and had based their decisions purely on the lack of warning given to the police. Given that there was no evidence to suggest that the demonstration had been a danger to public order, to disband it had been a disproportionate restriction on the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 11. It further held that there was no need to examine the complaint separately under Article 10 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for any moral damage. The applicants were awarded EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in English.)   Vitiello v. Italy (no. 6870/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Raffaela Vitiello and Salvatore Vitiello, are Italian nationals who were born in 1952 and 1923 respectively and live in Pompeii (Italy).   They own a property in Pompeii next to which a commercial warehouse was built. In May 2001 the person responsible for construction of the warehouse was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and a fine for breach of the planning regulations. The court also ordered Pompeii District Council to demolish the warehouse, which has still not been done.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of the damage arising from the impossibility of obtaining enforcement of the final judgment of the criminal courts ordering the demolition. They also invoked 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 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It awarded each applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and the applicants jointly EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gečas v. Lithuania (no. 418/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Algima   ntas Gečas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in the region of Klaipėda (Lithuania). He worked as a police officer.   In July 1997 Mr Gečas was arrested on charges of bribery. The case concerned his complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against him for abuse of office, which were ultimately discontinued in June 2003.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court considered that the delays in the proceedings, notably over 13 months spent gaining access to evidence regarded as classified, had been caused both by the authorities’ mistakes and inertia. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Gečas EUR   900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 581 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Gorea v. Moldova (no. 21984/05)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 The applicant, Grigore Gorea, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1971 and lives in Chişinău. He worked as Deputy Head of the Botanica Police Section in Chişinău   Mr Gorea was dismissed from his post following an investigation against him for unlawfully releasing two suspects from detention on remand. The investigation was discontinued in March 2002 but opened again in December 2004. As a result, he was arrested on 18 May 2005 and detained in the Police Inspectorate remand centre. Ultimately, in December 2006, the case was discontinued on the ground that it was prohibited to repeat charges against the same person for the same offence.   The case concerned Mr Gorea’s complaint that he had been detained unlawfully and in inhuman and degrading conditions. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court found that Mr Gorea’s detention in the Police Inspectorate had been relatively short (14 days), food and visiting rights had been adequate and he had not proved that his health had suffered as a result of his detention conditions. It also observed that he had not complained at the relevant time about threats from his cellmates on account of his having been a police officer. The Court therefore declared the complaint under Article 3 inadmissible.   The Court decided unanimously to strike the application out of its list concerning Mr Gorea’s complaint under Article 5 § 1 about his detention between 18 May and 1   June 2005, the domestic courts having already unequivocally condemned the re-opening of the criminal proceedings against him in its judgment of December 2006. However, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 concerning Mr   Gorea’s detention after 1 June 2005, the court order for his detention having expired and no other legal basis having been put forward. It further held that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 5 § 3. The Court awarded EUR 9,000 to Mr   Gorea in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Bobek v. Poland (no. 68761/01)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (fairness) The applicant, Wanda Bobek, is a Polish national who was born in 1929 and lives in Rzeszów (Poland).   The case concerned “lustration proceedings” brought against Ms Bobek. Those proceedings were the result of a law introduced in April 1997 which obliged persons exercising public functions in Poland to disclose whether they had worked for or collaborated with the State’s security services between 1944 and 1990. Ms Bobek made a declaration stating that she had never secretly collaborated with the communist secret service. In a judgment of September 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal found that she had lied in her declaration.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), Ms Bobek complained about the unfairness of the proceedings against her.   The Court noted that Ms Bobek had not been able to make notes during the proceedings and that had affected her defence rights. The written grounds for the judgment had not been served on her or made accessible to the public. The Court therefore concluded that, taken as a whole, the proceedings against her had been unfair and found that there had been a violation of Article 6   § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3. The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained and awarded Ms Bobek EUR 1,400 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kuc v. Poland (no. 73102/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Jan Kuc, is a Polish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Katowice (Poland). He is currently detained in Racibórz Prison.   The case concerned Mr Kuc’s complaint about the length of his detention on remand following his arrest in June 1999 on charges of having assisted a man suspected of homicide. He was subsequently convicted of that charge as well as further charges of attempted homicide, armed robbery and burglary and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.   He relied on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention having lasted three years and over eight months. Mr Kuc was awarded EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Rosińki v. Poland (no. 17373/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Jerzy Rosiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1934 and lives in Warsaw.   The case concerned Mr Rosiński’s complaint about the uncertainty between 1994 and 2003 of a project to expropriate a plot of his land in order to build a road and hospital.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Rosiński complained that, as a result of the project, his plot of land had lost its market value, he had not been granted a building permit and, under domestic law, he had not been entitled to compensation.   The Court was of the view that the uncertainty surrounding the project had failed to strike the requisite fair balance between general and individual interests and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Mr Rosiński was awarded EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Szmajchel v. Poland (no. 21541/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Władysław Szmajchel, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and is at present imprisoned in Bydgoszcz (Poland).   On 13 December 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and placed in pre-trial detention. The Polish courts later tried him on other charges, including clandestine production of amphetamines, falsifying documents and possession of ammunition. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended several times and on 8 July 2005 the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention.   The Court observed, among other considerations, that the reasons given by the Polish courts in their decisions were not sufficient to justify the applicant’s continued detention. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 8 Jevremović v. Serbia (no. 3150/05)   Violation of Article 13 The applicants, Ina Jevremović, and her mother, Ljiljana Jevremović, are Serbian nationals who live in Belgrade.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the proceedings they had brought in June 1999 against D.K., a very popular local singer, in order to establish paternity and obtain child maintenance. The civil suit is still partly pending.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), both applicants complained about the length of the proceedings and that they had no means to speed them up. Ina Jevremović further complained under Article 13 that the domestic legal system did not oblige defendants in paternity suits to comply with a court order to undergo a DNA test.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the proceedings having lasted more than three years and four months from the date of Serbia’s ratification of the Convention on 3 March 2004. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 on account of Ina Jevremović having been left, throughout the duration of the paternity proceedings, in a state of prolonged uncertainty about her identity. Finally, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 6 § 1 but that there was no need to examine separately the further complaints under Articles 8 and 13 about Ina Jevremović’s lack of financial support. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, Ina Jevremović was awarded EUR   5,000 and Ljiljana Jevremović EUR   1,000. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Kučera v. Slovakia (no. 48666/99)   Two violations of Article 8 The applicant, Pavel Kučera, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Považská Bystrica (Slovakia).   Mr Kučera was the director of the Police Department in the Považská Bystrica District. He claimed that early in the morning of 17 December 1997 several armed policemen in masks burst into his flat without his consent. He and his wife were shown a police investigator’s decision, accusing them of extortion. Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and he was remanded in custody. His detention was extended several times until his release on 19 December 1999. Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted the applicant and his wife on 7 February 2001.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained, in particular, about the length and unlawfulness of his detention on remand. He also complained that the police had entered his apartment unlawfully and that he had not been allowed to meet   his wife during his detention on remand, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 concerning the decision to extend the applicant’s detention on remand in June 1998 but that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of his detention having lasted two years. It further found, in particular, no justification for the length taken by the local courts to examine the applicant’s requests for release, and therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. With regard to the police’s unlawful entry into the applicant’s apartment, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8, and a further violation of the same article as regards the refusal to allow the applicant to meet with his wife during his detention on remand. Mr Kučera was awarded EUR   6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Hanbayat v. Turkey (no. 18378/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Aydın Hanbayat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962. He died in June 2005.   The case concerned Mr Hanbayat’s complaint about the length of his detention on remand following his arrest in October 1994 on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation for which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. The proceedings, still pending before the Court of Cassation when he died, have been discontinued.   He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of Mr   Hanbayat’s detention on remand having lasted for more than six years and a violation of Article 6 §   1 on account of the criminal proceedings against him having lasted for more than 11 years. The applicant’s heir, Fatma Hanbayat, was awarded EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kadayıfçı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 16480/03, 16486/03 and 28128/03) Tozkoparan and Others v. Turkey (no. 29138/03) Yurtöven v. Turkey (no. 21850/03) The eight applicants are all Turkish nationals.   In each case the applicants had their title to property annulled on the ground that the land concerned formed part of the coastline.   They asserted that they had been deprived of their ownership of the property, which had been transferred to the Treasury without compensation capable of satisfying the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the Kadayıfçı and Others case the Court held that there was no need to examine separately the complaints under Article 6. The sums awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses are mentioned in the corresponding judgments. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Mehmet and Suna Yiğit v. Turkey (no. 52658/99) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Mehmet Yiğit and Suna Yiğit, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1970 and 1969, respectively. They live in Diyarbakır.   In June 1997 the applicant’s seven-month-old daughter had an operation on her hip. During the operation she had a cardiac arrest and went into a coma. On coming out of the coma, she had lost the ability to move her arms and legs. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that the ensuing proceedings in which they claimed compensation for medical negligence were discontinued because they could not afford to pay the court fees.   The applicants alleged that they had been denied access to a court, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Also relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complained about the suffering they had endured as a result of their daughter’s illness and that they had not received compensation.   The Court found that requiring the applicants, who had no income, to pay fees which amounted to four times the monthly minimum wage at the time, had been a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the applicants’ other complaints. The Court awarded the applicants EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 11 Satılmış and Others v. Turkey (nos. 74611/01, 26876/06 and 27628/02) The applicants are 42 Turkish nationals living in Istanbul. They work as toll-booth cashiers on the Bosphorus bridge in Istanbul and are all members of the Yapı Yol Sen trade union (called Enerji Yapı Yol Sen at the material time), federated to the Confederation of public-sector workers’ trade unions (the KESK ).   In March 1998 and February 1999 the applicants, who are all civil servants employed on fixed-term contracts, left their work stations as part of a go-slow protest, with the result that motorists were able to drive past the toll barriers without having to pay. The administrative authorities brought actions against them for damages, obtaining judgment in their favour from the Turkish courts.   The applicants complained that the judgments ordering them to pay damages to the administrative authorities for taking part in a trade union action had infringed their freedom of assembly and association and their conditions of employment. Among other provisions, they relied on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   The Court noted that the legal basis for the measure complained of had been Law no.   657, which provided that it was forbidden for State officials to fail to report for work or deliberately work slowly. In so far as the measure had been intended to prevent the proper running of the public service being disrupted, it pursued legitimate aims including the prevention of disorder.   The Court went on to note that the go-slow protest had been agreed by the trade union to which the applicants belonged and the authorities concerned had received advance warning. By taking part, the applicants had exercised their freedom of peaceful assembly. In addition, the decisions of the Turkish courts to hold the applicants civilly liable had been given on account of their participation in the collective action organised by their trade union in order to defend their working conditions. Lastly, the Turkish Government had not explained whether the trade union would have been able to defend civil servants’ rights by other peaceful means, given that the domestic provisions contained a general prohibition of collective action by State officials.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that holding the applicants civilly liable had not been “necessary in a democratic society” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants the overall sum of EUR 33,615, apportioned as specified at the end of the judgment. (The judgment is available only in French).     Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Morselli v. Italy (no. 22697/04)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Iris Morselli, is an Italian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Modena (Italy).   In a judgment filed on 10 March 1993 the Italian courts declared her bankrupt.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained that the personal disabilities resulting from the bankruptcy ruling had lasted until her rehabilitation, which could not be requested until five years had elapsed since the close of the bankruptcy proceedings.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded Mrs   Morselli EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, plus any amount which might be payable in tax. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Akdaş and Others v. Turkey (nos. 23901/02, 23909/02, 23912/02, 23916/02 and 23952/02) Bağcı and Others v. Turkey (no. 73068/01) The applicants are Turkish nationals.   They complained of delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation and the insufficient level of default interest in relation to the very high rate of inflation in Turkey.   They all relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the Akdaş and Others case the applicants also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously in these cases that there had been violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article   6 § 1 in the Akdaş and Others case. The sums awarded for pecuniary damage and costs and expenses are mentioned in the corresponding judgments. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 4 and 5 Zerey and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33412/02, 30229/02 and 30263/02) The applicants, Ekrem Zerey, Rıfat Demir, Mehmet Garip Özer, Ahmet Şahin, Ahmet Durmaz and Davut Şahin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1965, 1973, 1967, 1971, 1966 and 1970 respectively. At the time of their application to the Court, Ekrem Zerey was in Mardin Prison and the other applicants were in Diyarbakır Prison.   The applicants were all arrested and remanded on custody on suspicion of membership of Hezbollah. Their cases concerned the length and unlawfulness of their detention in police custody at the anti-terror branch of the relevant security directorate where, according to measures authorised in a state of emergency (Law Decree no. 430), they were transferred for further interrogation. They further complained about both the lack of compensation and effective remedies to challenge their detention.   They relied on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   In all the cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 4 and 5. As regards the alleged pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Zerey, the Court decided to award him EUR 3,000. The applicants in the other two cases not having submitted their claims for just satisfaction within the time-limit, the Court made no such award. (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. In the case of Samardžić and AD Plastika v. Serbia , the Court declared AD   Plastika’s complaint inadmissible.   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Andria Oy and Kari Karanko v. Finland (no. 61557/00)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Nagler and Nalimmo B.V.B.A. v. Belgium (no. 40628/04) Wawrzynowicz v. Poland (no. 73192/01) Naime Doğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 76091/01)     (First applicant) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Samardžić and AD Plastika v. Serbia (no. 28443/05)   ***   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) 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.