CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 270 30.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Germany, Hungary, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments. The judgment available only in French is indicated with an asterisk   (*).   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.     Győző Nagy v. Hungary (application no. 38891/06) The applicant, Győző Nagy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him in 1998 for fraud and forgery. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 4,800 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,500 (costs and expenses)   Ayhan Işık v. Turkey (no. 33102/04) The applicant, Ayhan Işık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Tekirdağ (Turkey). Arrested in 1999 and convicted of membership of an illegal organisation in   2003, he complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in his case had been incompatible with Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention. He further complained under Article   6   §   3   (c) that he had been denied legal assistance during his detention in police custody. Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,800 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Buică v. Romania (no. 14001/06)* This case concerned an action to recover the title deeds in respect of a plot of land. The applicant relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Trofim v. Romania (no. 1193/08)* This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in her favour. She relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Ţurcanu v. Romania (no. 4520/08)* This case concerned the applicant’s inability to obtain effective compensation for property that had been illegally nationalised. She relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Gurbet Er v. Turkey (no. 9459/05)* This case concerned the domestic court’s refusal to grant the applicant legal aid. She relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Ritter-Coulais v. Germany (no. 32338/07) Volkmer v. Germany (no. 54188/07) Sinkovec v. Germany (no. 46682/07) Belényesi v. Hungary (no. 9269/08) Şerefli and Others v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 14015/05)* In these cases, the applicants complained under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The three judgments against Germany, concerning issues which are the subject of well-established case law by the Court, were delivered by a three-judge Committee under the Court's new procedures provided for in Protocol   No.   14 to the European Convention on Human Rights which Germany accepted on a provisional basis pending the entry into force of the Protocol.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – all cases. Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) – first 2 cases.   ***   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.