CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 novembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   859 29.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Russia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 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.     No violation of Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 Ismailova v. Russia (no. 37614/02) The applicant, Kurbankiz Ismailova, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Makhachkala (Russia). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the Russian courts’ decision to grant custody of her two children to their father. The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken in conjunction with Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Nankov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 26541/02) The applicant, Ljuben Nankov, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Gostivar (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). The case concerned the length of criminal proceedings against him for not adhering to safety requirements at a power supply company where he worked as a supervisor. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. As the applicant submitted no claim for just satisfaction within the specified time-limit, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make an award in that connection. (The judgment is available only in English.) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Akyüz v. Turkey (no. 35837/02) The applicant, Naciye Akyüz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1926 and lives in Ankara. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that she had been deprived by the Ministry of the Defence of a plot of land she had bought in a district of Ankara, without compensation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 10 Demirel and Ateş v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 31080/02) The applicants, Hıdır Ateş and Hünkar Demirel, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1951, respectively, and live in Istanbul. Mr Ateş was the editor-in-chief of a weekly newspaper, Yedinci Gündem , and Ms Demirel was its owner. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about their conviction for defamation (which entailed the closure of the newspaper for 15 days and a heavy fine) following the publication in Yedinci Gündem of an interview with Cemil Bayık, one of the leaders of the illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) and awarded each applicant 1,000   euros   (EUR) 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Göktaş v. Turkey (no. 66446/01) The applicant, Mahir Göktaş, was a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lived in Izmir. He died in August 2006. The case concerned the applicant’s complaints about proceedings in which he claimed compensation for being unlawfully arrested and detained (aged 14). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicant’s parents were awarded EUR   250 in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Şakir Akkurt v. Turkey (no. 20583/02) The applicant, Şakir Akkurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the length of criminal proceedings against him for belonging to the illegal organisation PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) had been excessive. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Saraçoğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 4489/02) The applicants are six Turkish nationals who live in Antalya (Turkey). The case concerned the applicants’ complaints about the length and unlawfulness of their detention in police custody on suspicion of involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security). In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   2,000, each, to three of the applicants, and EUR   1,700, each, to the other three applicants. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Tamamboğa and Gül v. Turkey (no. 1636/02) The applicants are both Turkish nationals. Mustafa Tamamboğa was born in 1973 and lives in Izmir. Eyüp Gül was born in 1974 and is currently serving a sentence for life imprisonment in Bolu Prison. The case concerned the applicants’ complaints, in particular, about the length of their remand in custody and of the criminal proceedings against them for membership of an illegal armed organisation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Arapovy v. Russia (no. 16115/06) Berezkina v. Russia (no. 3509/06) Glebov and Glebova v. Russia (no. 21777/04) Derevenko and Dovgalyuk v. Ukraine (nos. 9956/05 and 13200/05) Parintsev and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 22606/04, 43060/04, 43139/04, 8453/05, 24385/05, 27307/05, 27309/05, 30198/05, 36033/05, 36479/05, 45526/05 and 45527/05) The Court found the above violations in these cases concerning the failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Bülent Zengin v. Turkey (no. 60848/00) Evcimen v. Turkey (no. 21865/02) Mustafa Karatepe v. Turkey (no. 65942/01) Zekeriya Sezer v. Turkey (no. 63306/00) These four cases concerned, in particular, the applicants’ complaint that their cases had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 İlgün and Others v. Turkey (no. 57399/00) This case concerned, in particular, the applicants’ complaint about delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation that had been awarded to them. Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gierlinger v. Austria (no. 38032/05) Akıncıbaşı v. Turkey (no. 4212/02) Blidchenko v. Ukraine (no. 20339/03)     ***   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) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.