CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 octobre 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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   724 14.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 33   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 be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mezey v. Hungary (application no. 7909/05) The applicant, Tamás Mezey, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest.   The applicant relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings that began in January 2000 and have not yet ended, and awarded Mr   Mezey 7,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court further held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article   8. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Blumberga v. Latvia (no. 70930/01) The applicant, Ināra Blumberga, is a Latvian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Ventspils (Latvia).   She relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and that no separate issue arose under Article   13. Ms   Blumberga was awarded EUR   8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Hagen v. Poland (no. 7478/03) The applicant, Dawid Hagen, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Lublin (Poland).   He relied on 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 Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 concerning the length of the applicant’s detention which had lasted for two years and nearly nine months, and awarded the applicant EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 10 Folea v. Romania (no. 34434/02) The applicant, Gabriel Folea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bucharest.   His complaint concerned a fine, damages and court costs he was ordered to pay for defamation as a result of statements sent to the authorities and the press concerning illegal actions allegedly committed by certain employees of the State Bureau of Inventions and Trademarks (“the OSIM”). He relied on Article   10 (freedom of expression). He also complained, under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), that it had not been possible for him to demonstrate the truth of his allegations before the domestic courts.   The Court noted that the courts had declined to consider evidence adduced by the applicant among other things because the prosecution had terminated the proceedings brought against the complainant on the same charges. The applicant’s subsequent appeal had also been rejected by a final, irrevocable judgment for the same reasons as in the first instance, with no further explanation. The Court accordingly held that insufficient reasons had been given for the final judgment and that the applicant had not been given a fair hearing, in violation of Article   6   §   1.   The Court further noted that the statements the applicant had sent concerned subjects of general interest, namely alleged corruption by senior public servants. His remarks did not concern the private lives of the people concerned and had not been deemed manifestly insulting by the courts or the injured party. Reiterating its finding that the defamation proceedings had not been fair, the Court found that the applicant’s sentence was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and that the national authorities had not given relevant and sufficient reasons to justify it. The interference could therefore not be considered “necessary in a democratic society" and was in violation of Article   10. The Court awarded Mr   Folea EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   13 for costs and expenses. It awarded the applicant’s counsel EUR   1,650 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 8 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Iordache v. Romania (no. 6817/02) The applicant, Florian Iordache, is a Romanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Giurgiu (Romania). He is the father of a boy born in 1993.   In 1999 the applicant was sentenced to 20   years’ imprisonment and divested of his parental authority for the duration of his detention. In 2000 he brought proceedings against his ex-wife seeking access to his son. His request was rejected at first instance because the child’s mother could not be obliged to take the boy to the prison. The applicant’s subsequent appeals were rejected because he had not paid the requisite stamp duty. He relied on Articles 6   §   1 (right of access to a court), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Noting that the stamp duty the applicant had been required to pay amounted to a substantial sum and that the subject of the action taken by the applicant, namely access to his son, was highly important to him, the Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1.   The Court further pointed out that it had already found that completely depriving someone by law of their parental rights without the courts verifying the type of offence committed and the interests of the children concerned was incompatible with the basic need to take the interests of the child into account, and could therefore not be said to pursue a legitimate aim. It had also held that a person in the applicant’s situation had no effective remedy to defend their rights under Article   8 before the competent courts. Accordingly, the Court unanimously found that depriving the applicant thus of his parental rights had violated his rights under Articles   8   §   1 and   13. It also found that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint concerning access to his son and awarded him EUR   9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,650 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 8 Petrina v. Romania (no. 780601/01) The applicant, Liviu Petrina, is a Romanian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Bucharest. He is a politician.   In October 1997, during a television programme about a bill concerning access to information stored in the archives of the former State security services (“the Securitate ”), C.I., a journalist with the satirical weekly Caţavencu , affirmed that the applicant had collaborated with the Securitate . The same journalist published an article in the satirical weekly in November 1997, taking his allegations further. In January 1998 another article on the same subject, containing similar allegations, was published in Caţavencu by another journalist, M.D. The applicant lodged two sets of criminal proceedings against C.I. and M.D. for insult and defamation. The two journalists were acquitted, among other things because their remarks had been “general and indeterminate”, and the applicant’s civil claims were dismissed. A certificate issued in 2004 by the national research council for the archives of the State Security Department “ Securitate ” stated that the applicant was not among the people listed as having collaborated with the Securitate.   Following the acquittal of C.I. and M.D. by the domestic courts, the applicant complained that his right to respect for his honour and his good name had been violated. He relied on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court considered that the subject of the debate in issue – the enactment of legislation making it possible to divulge the names of former Securitate collaborators, a subject which received considerable media coverage and was closely followed by the general public – was a highly important one for Romanian society. Collaboration by politicians with that organisation was a highly sensitive social and moral issue in the Romanian historical context.   However, the Court found that in spite of the satirical character of the weekly Caţavencu , the articles in question had been bound to offend the applicant, as there was no evidence that he had ever belonged to that organisation. It also noted that the message contained in the articles was clear and direct, with no ironic or humorous note whatsoever.   The Court did not believe that the “measure of exaggeration” or “provocation” journalists were allowed in the context of press freedom could be seen in the articles in question. It found that reality had been misrepresented, with no factual basis. The journalists’ allegations had overstepped the bounds of the acceptable, accusing the applicant of having belonged to a group that used repression and terror to serve the old regime as a political police instrument. Moreover, there had been no legislative framework at the relevant time allowing the public access to Securitate files, a state of affairs for which the applicant could not be held responsible.   Accordingly, the Court was not convinced that the reasons given by the domestic courts to protect freedom of expression were sufficient to take precedence over the applicant’s reputation. It accordingly found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 and awarded Mr   Petrina EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Vînătoru v. Romania (no. 18429/02) The applicant, Mihai Vînătoru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Bucharest.   In May 1996 the Bucharest city authorities returned a building to the applicant which the State had unlawfully taken over in the 1970s. The applicant complained of violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, first of all because of legislative provisions imposing a residential tenancy agreement on him which had been concluded previously by the State and provided for an insignificant rent compared with the rates prevailing at the time, and secondly because of the lack of any possibility of obtaining compensation for his loss from the authorities. He relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the restrictions on the applicant’s use of his property imposed on him during the period concerned had failed to strike a fair balance between the protection of the individual’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property and the public interest, in violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. It awarded Mr   Vînătoru total damages of EUR   10,000, plus EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 13 Buzychkin v. Russia (no. 68337/01) The applicant, Viktor Mikhaylovich Buzychkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Dzerzhinsk (Russia).   In May 1998 the applicant was arrested and detained in remand prisons on charges of unlawful possession of firearms and attempted murder of a police officer. The applicant’s detention on remand lasted from 26   May 1998 until 28   May 1999. Between May 1998 and March 1999 he was kept in Nizhniy Novgorod and thereafter transferred to Moscow. The applicant was ultimately convicted as charged in April 1999 and sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. In March 2004, he was released on parole.   The case concerned Mr   Buzychkin’s complaint about the appalling conditions of his pre-trial detention. He also alleged that he contracted tuberculosis during his detention in Nizhniy Novgorod, that his health deteriorated, and that he was not provided with adequate medical treatment during his detention in Moscow. He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the general conditions of detention in remand prisons   IZ–32/1 in Nizhniy Novgorod and   IZ–48/3 in Moscow, and a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the applicant’s complaints concerning the general conditions of detention in those remand prisons. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) Timergaliyev v. Russia (no. 40631/02) The applicant, Firdavis Favizovich Timergaliyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Sverdlovskiy Region (Russia).   He relied on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 in conjunction with Article   6 §   3   (c) on account of the failure to provide the applicant with a hearing aid and the failure to appoint counsel for the appeal hearing. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Just satisfaction Kanala v. Slovakia (no. 57239/00) The applicant, Ivan Kanala, is a Slovak national who was born in 1964 and lives in Rožňava (Slovakia). He is a businessman.   In a judgment of 10   July 2007, the Court had held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) on account of his property having been sold to the co-owner, in the context of enforcement of his debt, at a price which was below its actual value. The Court had further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In its judgment today, the Court awarded Mr   Kanala EUR   15,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,114 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Ayhan and Others v. Turkey (no. 29287/02)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Köklü v. Turkey (no. 10262/04) The applicants are four Turkish nationals. Mehmet Ali Ayhan, Ali Akkurt and Şükrü Töre were born in 1961, 1959 and 1964 respectively, and are currently serving a term of life imprisonment in Turkey, and Turgut Köklü was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. The applicants were arrested and detained in police custody in the course of police operations against an illegal armed organisation, the TKEP (the Communist Labour Party of Turkey).   They all relied on Article   5 (right to liberty and security). Mr   Köklü also relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   In the case of Ayhan and Others , the Court held unanimously that the length of detention during judicial proceedings had been excessive in violation of Article   5   §   3: Mehmet Ali   Ayhan’s detention having lasted for over ten years and nine months, and Ali Akkurt and Şükrü Töre’s detention having lasted for approximately eight years and nine months.   The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of the excessive length of Mr   Köklü’s detention on remand which had lasted for over six years and four months, and a violation of Article   5   §   4 concerning the applicant’s complaint that he had had no effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention on remand. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings which began with the applicant’s arrest on 10   March 1998 and are still pending, for two levels of jurisdiction.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   6,000 to Mr   Ayhan, EUR   4,000, each, to Mr   Akkurt and Mr   Töre and EUR   8,000 to Mr   Köklü. For costs and expenses, the Court awarded EUR   1,000 to the applicants, jointly, in the case of Ayhan and Others . (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (torture and investigation) Erdoğan Yılmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 19374/03) Violation of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Mehmet Eren v. Turkey (no. 32347/02) The applicants in the first case are seven Turkish nationals. Erdoğan Yılmaz, Ayşe Yılmaz, Birsen Kaya, Sırma Yeter, Mustafa Yeter and Ayşe (Yeter) Yumli who were born in 1960, 1955, 1974, 1924, 1955, and 1970 respectively and live in Turkey, and Dursun Yeter who was born in 1957 and lives in Austria. Sırma Yeter, Mustafa Yeter, Dursun Yeter and Ayşe (Yeter) Yumli are the relatives of Süleyman Yeter, now deceased, who was arrested by police officers on 22   February 1997 on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the MLKP (Marxist Leninist Communist Party). The same day, Erdoğan Yılmaz, Ayşe Yılmaz and Birsen Kaya were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the MLKP.   The applicant in the second case is Mehmet Eren, a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He is a journalist. He was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters along with 108 other persons. At the time of the arrest, the applicant and the other arrestees were in the Diyarbakır branch of the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), where demonstrations and hunger strikes were allegedly being organised, in order to protest about the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan.   The first three applicants in the case of Erdoğan Yılmaz and Others and Mehmet Eren complained that they were ill-treated in police custody and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. The remaining applicants raised the same allegations in respect of their relative. All the applicants relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation). Mr   Eren also relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   In the case of Erdoğan Yılmaz and Others the Court considered that the ill-treatment complained of had been inflicted intentionally by police officers for the purpose of extracting confessions and that that ill-treatment had therefore amounted to torture, in breach of Article   3. In the case of Mehmet Eren the Court found in particular that the Turkish Government had not given any plausible explanation as to the cause of the injuries sustained by the applicant in police custody. Those injuries had therefore been the result of serious ill-treatment for which the Government had been responsible, in violation of Article   3.   In both cases the Court found that the Government had failed to carry out an effective or adequate investigation into the applicants’ allegations, in further violation of Article   3.   Lastly, in the case of Mehmet Eren , the Court held that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article   6.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   15,000, each, to Erdoğan Yılmaz, Ayşe Yılmaz and Birsen Kaya; EUR   15,000, jointly, to Sırma Yeter, Mustafa Yeter, Dursun Yeter and Ayşe (Yeter) Yumli; and, EUR   7,500 to Mr   Eren. The applicants in the case of Erdoğan Yılmaz and Others were awarded EUR   5,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 2 (life) Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Gülen v. Turkey (no. 28226/02) The applicants, Fatma Gülen and Necdet Gülen, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1942 and 1931 respectively and live in Germany. They are the parents of Ayşe Gülen Uzunhasanoğlu who was killed during a police operation conducted by the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on 17   April 1992.   They relied on Article   2 (right to life).   The Court noted that a violent clash had taken place between the police and the applicants’ daughter and another armed suspect during which the first shot had been fired by the deceased. The Court therefore considered that the use of lethal force in the circumstances, however regrettable, had not exceeded what had been “absolutely necessary” for the purposes of self-defence and in order to effect a lawful arrest. There had therefore been no violation of Article   2 as regards the killing of Ayşe Gülen Uzunhasanoğlu. However, the authorities’ investigation into the circumstances surrounding her killing, lasting more than nine years, could not be described as a prompt response to the allegation of unnecessary and disproportionate use of force and the Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article   2 in that respect.   The Court awarded Fatma Gülen and Necdet Gülen, jointly, EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kanbur v. Turkey (no. 9984/03) The applicant, Yaşar Kanbur, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.   On 30   October 2001 the Court had found that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 following an application lodged by the applicant on 21   July 1995 concerning the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for his membership of Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). By then the proceedings had lasted for over 19   years.   He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Today the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings which have continued for more than six years and ten months, for two levels of jurisdiction, since the Court’s earlier judgment and have not ended. Mr   Kanbur was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 2 (life and investigation) Kücük and Others v. Turkey (no. 63353/00) The 12 applicants are Turkish nationals. The first applicant is the widow and the other applicants are the children of Yusuf Küçük, who died on 4   June 1998. At the relevant time the applicants lived in the village of Ovacik in Tunceli province, which was under a state of emergency decreed at the time in south-east Turkey because of serious clashes between security forces and members of the illegal armed organisation PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party).   At 11.45 one night, when Yusuf Küçük was out with three other villagers looking for lost sheep, he was killed by a shell fired from a tank by a gendarmerie unit lying in ambush outside the village. The prosecuting authorities opened an investigation into the incident the next day. The public prosecutor subsequently relinquished jurisdiction and transmitted the case to the administrative committee of Tunceli province. The province in turn transmitted it to the Gendarmerie post in Tunceli with a request for them to carry out an internal inquiry. A report was drawn up on the strength of which the Tunceli province administrative committee decided to close the case and discontinue the proceedings.   The applicants relied in particular on Article   2 (the right to life).   The Court reiterated that the situation in the south-east of Turkey at the time obliged the State to take exceptional steps to regain control of the region and put a stop to the violence. The Court noted that the villagers had been warned, both orally and in writing, that they were forbidden to leave their homes after sunset, and considered that Yusuf Küçük could not have been unaware of the risk he was taking when he left the village. The Court nevertheless considered that when the gendarmes deployed troops armed with heavy artillery in a zone where civilians lived, it was their duty also to consider the risks of error inevitably inherent in such a deployment of force. There was no evidence, however, that such considerations had played any significant part in the preparation and supervision of the firing. Lastly, it had not been demonstrated that there had been any real need for a tank to fire a shell. Consideration should have been given to the use of less life-threatening means, even assuming that terrorists might have been present. Accordingly, the Court was unable to say that the operation had been prepared and carried out with the necessary precautions to avoid the accidental killing of civilians. That being so, it found by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article   2.   Also, reiterating that it had found in several cases that inquiries conducted by provincial administrative committees gave rise to serious doubts in so far as they were not independent of the executive, the Court found unanimously that there had been another violation of Article   2 because of the lack of an effective investigation into the circumstances of Yusuf Küçük’s death. It awarded the applicants EUR   50,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mesutoğlu v. Turkey (no. 36533/04) The applicants, Hanım, Dilek, Yusuf and Emrah Mesutoğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1955, 1986, 1984 and 1988 respectively and live in Elazığ (Turkey).   Following a road accident in which two of their close relatives died, the applicants sued the Elazığ municipal authorities for damages. They complained that their action had been declared inadmissible because of a procedural defect even though they had lodged new proceedings within the time-limits and in the forms prescribed by law. They relied on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court considered that the Turkish administrative courts had attached too much importance to form, depriving the applicants of their right of access to a court. Accordingly, it found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and held that no separate issue arose under Article   13. It awarded the applicants EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Gianazza v. Italy (no. 69878/01) In a judgment delivered on 5 October 2006 the Court had found the manner in which the applicant had been deprived of his possessions unlawful and in violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. It had also held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Today the Court took note of the friendly settlement agreed on by the parties, under the terms of which the applicant would receive EUR   355,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. In view of this friendly settlement the Court decided to strike the application out of its list.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dragalina v. Romania (no. 17268/03) Hanganu v. Romania (no. 12848/05) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Prodanof and Others v. Romania (no. 6079/02) The Court found the above violations in these three cases because of the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Megheleş and Popa v. Romania (no. 28266/05) The Court found the above violations because a final, enforceable judicial decision in the applicants’ favour had been set aside.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Maria Dumitrescu and Sorin Mugur Dumitrescu v. Romania (no. 7293/02) The Court found the above violation in this case because the applicants had been unable to use, and collect the rent from, a building which had been returned to them.   Just satisfaction Weigel v. Romania (no. 35303/03) In a judgment delivered on   8 March 2007 the Court had found that the sale by the State of the applicant’s property, to third parties who had bought it in good faith, before the final judicial decision confirming his title to the property had been pronounced, combined with a total lack of compensation, amounted to deprivation of property contrary to Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. At the time it had also found that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In the judgment it delivered today the Court found that the Romanian State must return the applicant’s property to him. Failing that, it awarded Mr   Weigel EUR   85,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,360 for costs and expenses.         Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The Court held that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 in the case of Hidvégi .   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Hidvégi v. Hungary (no. 5482/05) Mrúz v. Hungary (no. 3261/05) Abate v. Italy (no. 7612/03) Belperio v. Italy (no. 39258/03) D’Alessio v. Italy (no. 36308/03) Di Brita v. Italy (no. 32671/03) Čavajda v. Slovakia (no. 65416/01) Tarımcı v. Turkey (no. 30001/03)   ***   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 Adrien Raif-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] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.