CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 juin 2009

.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 } .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 }   440 02.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23   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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) R.H. v. Finland (application no. 34165/05) The applicant, R.H., is a Finnish national who was born in 1953. Sentenced to a conditional prison sentence of eight months in May 2004, he complained about the unfairness of the proceedings against him. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged in particular that on appeal his case had not been given a full examination. 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 refusal to hold an oral hearing at the appellate stage. The Court awarded R.H. 2,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Silviu Marin v. Romania (no. 35482/06) The applicant, Silviu Marin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Slobozia (Romania). In a decision of 1991 the administrative authorities granted him a plot of land but the decision was subsequently declared null and void. He complained in particular, under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention, about a breach of his right to the enjoyment of his property and about the uncertain situation of his land. The Court, finding that Mr   Marin could not reasonably have expected the annulment of a decision 13   years after adoption, found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. It further held that it did not need to rule on the complaints submitted under Article   6   §   1 and Article   14. It reserved the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) Demirören v. Turkey (no. 583/03) The applicant, Mehmet Demirören, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and has lived in France since 2002. In 1981 he was arrested on suspicion of belonging to an illegal armed organisation. He was convicted and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in 1986, but in 2001 he was acquitted by the Assize Court, the decision being notified to him in February 2004. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Demirören complained about the length of the proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1, the proceedings having lasted for some 14 years and five months for two levels of jurisdiction. The applicant had not claimed just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Doğangün v. Turkey (no. 30302/03) The applicant, Ali Kemal Doğangün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1935 and lives in Ankara. In connection with a claim for compensation that he brought against the authorities following the de facto expropriation of his land, he relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), complaining about the non-payment of his judgment debt that had been established by a final judicial decision. As Mr   Doğangün had failed to obtain the full execution of the final judgment within a reasonable time, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and awarded Mr   Doğangün EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Günaydın Turizm ve İnşaat Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkey (no. 71831/01) The applicant, Günaydın Turizm ve İnşaat Ticaret Anonim Şirketi, is a Turkish limited company. In 1971 the Public Treasury brought proceedings claiming the registration in its name of the Villa Zarifi , a palace and outbuildings belonging to the applicant company. The Treasury’s claim was ultimately granted and the applicant company was evicted from the premises. The applicant company complained, among other things, under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), that it had been unfairly deprived of its property, in the absence of any public-interest grounds and without any compensation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, as the transfer of the Villa Zarifi to the Public Treasury without compensation could not be described as sufficiently foreseeable, and found that it did not need to rule on the complaints under Article   6   §   1 and Article   8, taken separately or in conjunction with Articles   13 or   14. It reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Tamer Aslan and Others v. Turkey (no. 1595/03) The applicants, Tamer Aslan, Mehmet Ali Şeker, Ziver Kartal and Gül Aslan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1965, 1972 and 1974 respectively. In 2000 they were given prison sentences ranging from 12   years and 6   months to life. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained in particular about the presence of a military judge on the bench for part of the proceedings against them, and about the length of those proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings – which lasted for between five and nine years depending on the applicant – and because the State Security Court had lacked independence and impartiality. The applicants had not claimed just satisfaction within the allotted time. However, the Court took the view that in principle the most appropriate redress would be a retrial of the applicants, in due course, by an independent and impartial tribunal. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Yılmaz Bozkurt v. Turkey (no. 21213/03) The applicant, Yılmaz Bozkurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was arrested on suspicion of belonging to the illegal organisation PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and in 1997 was sentenced to life imprisonment by the State Security Court, a sentence later reduced to 12   years and 6   months by the Assize Court. He complained, among other things, relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length – about 14   years – of those proceedings, and awarded the applicant EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, with EUR   500 for costs and expenses (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Czaran and Grofcsik v. Romania (no. 11388/06) Glatz and Others v. Romania (no. 15269/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Enyedi v. Romania (no. 32211/02) The Court found the above violations in these three cases concerning actions for recovery of property.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Groza and Marin v. Romania (no. 21246/03) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the delayed and partial enforcement of a final judgment in the applicants’ favour.   Just satisfaction Draica v. Romania (no. 35102/02) In a judgment of 3 June 2008 the Court found a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgment the Court awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   250 for costs and expenses.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Erdoğan and Fırat v. Turkey (nos. 15121/03 and 15127/03) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the delay by the authorities in paying compensation for expropriation.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Hacısalihoğlu v. Turkey (no. 343/04) The Court found the above-mentioned violation on account of the expropriation of the applicant’s property without compensation.     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) Sinkó v. Hungary (no. 3925/05) Pabjan v. Poland (no. 24706/05) Bošková v. Slovakia (no. 21371/06) Grausová v. Slovakia (no. 14757/06) Hudečková v. Slovakia (no. 16933/03) Novák v. Slovakia (no. 1494/05) Silka v. Slovakia (no. 284/06) Arıkan and Others v. Turkey (no. 43033/02) Emsal Ayaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 32837/02)     ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.