CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 septembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF92F5487 { width:269.35pt; display:inline-block } .s6123F51 { width:26.59pt; display:inline-block } .s74EEEBA0 { width:99.2pt; display:inline-block } .sB2D9AF72 { width:134.58pt; display:inline-block } .s5DF109A7 { width:31.95pt; display:inline-block } .s6C265846 { width:41.93pt; display:inline-block } .s20821E70 { width:40.5pt; display:inline-block } .sD4EFAFCE { width:93.11pt; display:inline-block } .s23A497E9 { width:37.91pt; display:inline-block } .s3FC311AB { width:95.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7DE843F0 { width:41.27pt; display:inline-block } .sD0DE5315 { width:27.91pt; display:inline-block } .sD8C61C98 { width:29.25pt; display:inline-block } .s76D4A33B { width:49.9pt; display:inline-block } .s107D1E8 { width:32.57pt; display:inline-block } .s71A7415E { width:191.29pt; display:inline-block } .sF585D7ED { width:9.23pt; display:inline-block } .s4B00EDBF { width:33.83pt; display:inline-block } .s47E4D08 { width:28.58pt; display:inline-block } .s62F37AE4 { width:30.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA95D1C5F { width:19.23pt; display:inline-block } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sAC030EB3 { width:24.59pt; display:inline-block } .sAF763E24 { width:31.92pt; display:inline-block } .sD2B64EC2 { width:70.56pt; display:inline-block } .s53D98941 { width:29.92pt; display:inline-block } .s4C87F40F { width:19.24pt; display:inline-block } .s7ECE5F83 { width:35.25pt; display:inline-block } .s864AADD0 { width:13.89pt; display:inline-block } .s1522D06D { width:66.59pt; display:inline-block } .s2CEA8CB3 { width:34.58pt; display:inline-block } .sF0CFAFAA { width:20.56pt; display:inline-block } .s8165CB1D { width:21.89pt; display:inline-block } .sD7BD576E { width:24.57pt; display:inline-block } .sB83D920 { width:15.23pt; display:inline-block } .sFF91B740 { width:19.25pt; display:inline-block } .sC9103AF { width:23.88pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2197C682 { width:201.49pt; display:inline-block } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s5E15F1C8 { width:0.33pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   632   18.9.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 35 Chamber (none of which is final [1] ):   SECTION 1                    Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 In the following 34 Turkish judgments, the applicants complained in relation to delays in the payment of compensation due to them following the expropriation of their property. They alleged that the compensation they received did not reflect the real increase in inflation during the period between the date the amount was fixed and the date of payment.   In each case (the judgments are available only in French) the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1   (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time).   The Court awarded each applicant the following amounts in American dollars (USD) for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, together with a total of USD 300 in each case for costs and expenses:   Pecuniary damage   non-pecuniary     damage (1)     Yusuf Çelebi v. Turkey (no. 2) application no. 19667/92)   USD 7,645   (2)     Özen v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 19677/92)   USD 2,148   (3)     Hasan Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 19680/92)   USD 9,895 (4)     Ömer Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19684/92)   USD 5,963   USD 1,000 (5)     Yunus Öztürk v. Turkey (no.2) (no. 19685/92)   USD 10,990 (6)     Sülün v. Turkey (no.2) (no. 19686/92)   USD 11,533 (7)     Hüseyin Şahin v. Turkey (no. 19687/92)   USD 4,264 (8)     Mehmet Şahin v. Turkey (no. 19688/92)   USD 4,264 (9)     Mustafa Şahin v. Turkey (no. 19689/92)   USD 4,264 (10)     Celal Şen v. Turkey (no. 19690/92)   USD 23,979 (11)     Keziban Şen v. Turkey (no. 19691/92)   USD 8,038 (12)     İbrahim Taşdemir v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 19692/92)   USD 16,949 (13)     Mevlüt Taşdemir v. Turkey (no. 19693/92)   USD 20,000   USD 1,000 (14)     Zekeriya Taşdemir v. Turkey (no.2) (no. 19694/92)   USD 13,583 (15)     Necati Tosun v. Turkey (no. 19695/92)   USD 13,003   USD 1,000 (16)     Fatma Yavuz v. Turkey (no. 19696/92)   USD 1,326   USD 1,000 (17)     Hüseyin Yavuz v. Turkey (no. 19697/92)   USD 6,851   USD 1,000 (18)     Şakir Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 19698/92)   USD 12,652   USD 1,000 (19)     Öztekin v. Turkey (no.2) (no. 20129/92)   USD 17,389 (20)     Baltekinoğlu v. Turkey (no. 20130/92)   USD 24,900   USD 1,000 (21)     Başar v. Turkey (no. 20131/92)   USD 10,107   USD 1,000 (22)     Satu Bozkurt v. Turkey (no. 20135/92)   USD 7,320   USD 1,000 (23)     İsmihan Çelebi v. Turkey (no. 20137/92)   USD 12,964   USD 1,000 (24)     Mehmet Çelebi v. Turkey (no. 20138/92)   USD 9,133   USD 1,000 (25)     Daniş v. Turkey (no.2) (no. 20141/92)   USD 15,054 (26)     Küçükdemirkan v. Turkey (no. 20145/92)   USD 14,421   USD 1,000 (27)     Minikli v. Turkey (no. 20146/92)   USD 6,654   USD 1,000 (28)     Adil Öztekin v. Turkey (no. 20147/92)   USD 10,107   USD 1,000 (29)     Ekrem Öztekin v. Turkey (no. 20148/92)   USD 10,107   USD 1,000 (30)     Havva Öztekin v. Turkey (no. 20149/92)   USD 15,986   USD 1,000 (31)     Hicap Öztekin v. Turkey (no. 20150/92)   USD 10,107   USD 1,000 (32)     Mahir Taşdemir v. Turkey (no. 20157/92)   USD 2,734 (33)     Mustafa Tosun v. Turkey (no. 20159/92)   USD 44,370   USD 1,000 (34)     Şevket Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 20160/92)   USD 7,475   USD 1,000   SECTION 3   (35)     S.G. v. France (no. 40669/98)   Struck out Mrs. S.G. (who died on 21 August 2000) was a French national born in 1918 who lived in Paris. She was a party to civil proceedings for non-payment of rent relating to her inability to obtain insurance against theft, which was a condition of her lease. She complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that, in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, the Judge Rapporteur’s report was not communicated to the parties.   Finding that La Fondation de France , which inherited the applicant’s estate, did not have a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings, The European Court of Human Rights decided, unanimously, to strike out the case. (The judgment is available only in French.)   *** The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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.