CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 2 juillet 2008

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   493 2.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING KOZACIOĞLU v. TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 2 July 2008 at 9 a.m. , in the case of Kozacıoğlu v. Turkey (application no.   2334/03).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     The applicant   İbrahim Kozacıoğlu, a Turkish national, died in 2005. His heirs decided to continue with the application before the Court.   Summary of the facts   In April 2000 a building belonging to the applicant was expropriated by the Ministry of Culture on the ground that it had been classified as a “cultural asset”. The applicant was paid approximately 65,326   euros   (EUR) on the transfer of the property.   In October 2000 the applicant lodged an application for increased compensation, requesting that a new panel of experts re-assess the property and take into account its historical value. He argued in particular that the building in question featured on the Council of Europe’s inventory of cultural and natural heritage, and claimed approximately EUR   1,728,750 in additional compensation. Two different panels of experts found in 2001 that, in view of the nature of the property, its value should be increased by   100%. However, in May 2002, the domestic courts awarded the applicant a final sum of approximately EUR   45,980 in additional compensation.   Complaint   Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains in particular of an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 November 2002.   In a Chamber judgment of 31   July 2007, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court noted that the historical value of the expropriated building had not been taken into consideration when calculating compensation, either when determining the expropriation compensation or during the proceedings to increase that award. It considered that this total failure to take that element into account had deprived the applicant of the value of the expropriated property. It also held that its judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR   75,000   for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses.   On 31   October 2007, the Turkish Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article   43 [1] (referral to the Grand Chamber). That request was accepted by the Grand Chamber panel on 31   March 2008.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Nina Vajić (Croatian) Rait Maruste (Estonian), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Renate Jaeger (German), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgian), Ann Power (Irish), Işıl Karakaş (Turkish), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldovan), judges , Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Päivi Hirvelä (Finnish), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Deniz Akçay , co-Agent ,   Ayşen Emüler , Vedia Sirmen , Didem Akpak , Murat Gürül , Fügen   Karaman , Tolga Sarıaslan , Özden Gazialem , Abdullah Demir , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Tekin Akıllıoğlu , Adil Aktay , Counsel ;   Özlem Yıldız , Adviser.     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date [2] .   Press contacts Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.