CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 mars 2002

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF022F8BC { width:28.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4D0F99C1 { width:134.14pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB347D098 { width:96.79pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sA5DAD651 { width:0.56pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s40894AAA { width:30.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA438DDDA { width:25.9pt; display:inline-block } .s78DCF086 { width:277.03pt; display:inline-block } .s2A785D6B { width:147.47pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     176   28.3.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 57 Chamber judgments of which only Klamecki v. Poland and the friendly settlements are final [1] :     SECTION 1   (1)     Oral and others v. Turkey (application no. 27735/95)   Friendly settlement   The applicants complained under Article 2 about the alleged extra-judicial killing of their relative İsmail Oral, during a police operation carried out in the Kadıköy district of Istanbul on 19 May 1991.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 500,000 French francs (FRF) inclusive of costs and expenses is to be paid to the applicant on an ex gratia basis. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Quartucci v. Italy (no. 41232/98)     Friendly settlement   The applicant complained about her prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of her apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings (just over 13 years and one month [2] ). She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 15,493.71 euros (EUR) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Xenopoulos v. Greece (no. 55611/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the length of proceedings in the administrative courts concerning the transfer of social insurance rights acquired in Turkey.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 13,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   SECTION 3                      Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants in the following six Turkish judgments complained, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.1, 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. They also complained of the length of the administrative proceedings relying on Article 6 § 1.   In each case (the judgments are available only in French) the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property) of the Convention and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It awarded each applicant the amounts listed below in euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage together with a total of EUR 330 in each case for costs and expenses.     Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage (4)     Dudu Çalkan v. Turkey (no. 19660/92) EUR 18,400   (5)     Mehmet Çelebi v. Turkey (no. 20140/92) EUR 7,750 EUR 1,100 (6)     Adile Kartal v. Turkey (no. 20144/92) EUR 9,100 EUR 1,100 (7)     Ahmet Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 20151/92) EUR 36,400 EUR 1,100 (8)     Mehmet Özen v. Turkey (no. 20152/92) EUR 24,600 EUR 1,100 (9)     Aziz Şen v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 20155/92) EUR 4,200 -   (10) Klamecki v. Poland (no. 25415/94)     No violation Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1   On 30 November 1991 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand on suspicion of aggravated fraud of about one billion zlotys. He complains, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and Article 6 § 1 about the length of the detention on remand (two years and three days [2] ) and the length of the criminal proceedings (six years, one month and 21 days [3] ).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1.   The judgment is available only in English.     (11) A.S. v. Turkey (no. 27694/95)                    Friendly settlement (12 )     İ.   S. v. Turkey (no. 38931/97)                    Friendly settlement   In the following two Turkish cases the applicants complained in relation to delays in the payment of compensation due to them following the expropriation of their property. They alleged, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the compensation they received did not reflect the real increase in inflation during the period between the date proceedings for additional compensation were brought and the date of payment. In İ.   S. v. Turkey the applicant also complained about the length of the administrative proceedings relying on Article 6 § 1 (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time).   A.S. v. Turkey The case was struck out following a friendly settlement according to which the applicant will be paid 350,000 USD in respect of any damage and costs and expenses.     İ.   S. v. Turkey   The case was struck out following a friendly settlement according to which the applicant will be paid 10,000 USD in respect of any damage and costs and expenses.   The judgments are available only in French.     (13)     Ülger v. Turkey (no. 28505/95)   Friendly settlement   On 19 March 1995 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the T.D.P. ( Türkiye Devrim Partisi - Revolution Party of Turkey). He complained, that there was no reasonable suspicion for his arrest and that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest. He further complained that he was kept in police custody for ten days without being brought before a judge or other officer and that Turkish law does not provide any remedy by which he can challenge the lawfulness of his arrest. Finally he complained that he was deprived of his right to compensation for unlawfulness of his arrest and detention. He relied on Article   5   §§ 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 30,000 FRF is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   (14)     Birutis and others v. Lithuania (nos.   47698/99 and 48115/99)                 Violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   The applicants, while completing their sentences in the Pravieniškės Prison, were suspected of participating in a riot that took place in the prison on 15 January 1997. Twenty-one   detainees, including the applicants, were accused of causing or taking part in the riot. In establishing the applicants’ guilt, the court referred to the statements of anonymous witnesses who were mostly other detainees. These statements had been recorded by the prosecution during the pre-trial investigation. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they had been deprived of a fair trial and that their defence rights had been breached because they had been convicted on the basis of anonymous evidence.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and that it was not required to rule under Article 41.   The judgment is available only in English.   In the following 43 Italian cases, the applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings (indicated in brackets) to which they were parties. They relied on Article 6 § 1, claiming their civil rights were not decided within a reasonable time. In the following cases, a friendly settlement was concluded : nos. 18, 30, 35, 41 and 54     Non-pecuniary Damage   Costs and expenses     (15)     Sciarrotta v. Italy (no. 40151/98) (more than four years)   EUR 1,022.58 (16)     Diebold v. Italy (no. 41740/98) (more than seven years and nine months and still pending on 20 February 2002) EUR 8,000 to each applicant EUR 1,250 to each applicant (17)     Lattanzi and Cascia v. Italy (no. 44334/98) (approximately seven years and six months for two levels of jurisdiction) EUR 6,000 to each applicant EUR 150.81 to each applicant (18)     Marrama v. Italy (no. 44359/98) (just over eight years and ten months) ITL 18,000,000 ITL 6,000,000 (19)     Contardi v. Italy (no. 46970/99) (more than 14 year and 10 months for two levels of jurisdiction) EUR 16,000 EUR 2,000 (20)     Mastromauro S.r.l.   v. Italy (no. 47479/99) (nine years and six months for three levels of jurisdiction) EUR 3,000 EUR 500 (21)     Albergamo v. Italy (no. 44392/98) (more than 11 years and six months for two levels of jurisdiction and still pending on 22 February 2002)   -   -   (22)     Antonio Nardone v. Italy (no. 44428/98) (more than nine years and seven months for three levels of jurisdiction) EUR 4,000 EUR 2,000 (23)     Leonardi v. Italy (no. 54278/00) (more than five years and two months and still pending on 6 June 2001) EUR 7,000 EUR 500 (24)     Prete v. Italy (no. 54279/00) (approximately 14 years and 11 months for two levels of jurisdiction and still pending on 1 September 2001) EUR 15,493.71 EUR 2,000 (25)     Giordano v. Italy (no. 54280/00) (more than 31 years) EUR 46,000 EUR 2,000 (26)     Amici v. Italy (no. 54282/00) (approximately 26 years and seven months and still pending on 24 September 2001) EUR 48,000 EUR 500 (27)     Radicchi v. Italy (no. 54284/00) (more than 29 years and two months) EUR 42,000 - (28)     Tatangelo v. Italy (no. 54285/00) (more than 28 years and nine months) EUR 20,000 - (29)     Strangi v. Italy (no. 54286/00) (more than 10 years and nine months) EUR 16,000 EUR 500 (30)     Sergio Ferrari v. Italy (no. 54287/00) (more than 23 years and six months) EUR 20,658.28 - (31)     Andreozzi v. Italy (no. 54288/00) (more than 26 years and six months) EUR 36,151.98 EUR 500 (32)     D'Agostino v. Italy (nos. 54290/00 and 54310/00) (more than 26 years and 10 months [4]   for the first set of proceedings and more than 18 years eight months and still pending and more than 18 years eight months and still pending on 11 October 2001 for the second set of proceedings) EUR 50,000 EUR 1,000 (33)     Caproni v. Italy (no. 54291/00) (more than 19 years and one month and still pending on 17 September 2001) EUR 34,000 EUR 5,000 (34)     Cerasomma v. Italy (no. 54292/00) (more than 12 years and 11 months and still pending on 22 November 2001) EUR 20,000 EUR 2,000 (35)     Domenico   Chiappetta v. Italy (no. 54293/00) (almost seven years and nine months and still pending on 7 March 2001) EUR 4,131.66 EUR 671.39 (36)     Mario Fiore v. Italy (no. 54294/00) (more than 29 years and six months) EUR 41,316.55 EUR 2,000 (37)     Trovato v. Italy (no. 54295/00) (eight years and ten months) EUR 12,000 EUR 500 (38)     Manera v. Italy (no. 54296/00) (more than 13 years and one month) EUR 22,000 - (39)     Aniceto v. Italy (no. 54297/00) (more than 11 years and six months) EUR 18,000 EUR 500 (40)     Sabetta v. Italy (no. 54298/00) (more than six years) EUR 8,000 EUR 500 (41)     Libertini and Di Girolamo v. Italy (no. 54299/00) (almost 27 years and nine months) EUR 2,582.28 to each applicant EUR 860.76 to each heir EUR 604.25 to each applicant EUR 201.42 to each heir (42)     Jaculli v. Italy (no. 54301/00) (more than 13 years and 11 months for two levels of jurisdiction) EUR 16,000 EUR 1,500 (43)     Incollingo v. Italy (no. 54302/00) (more than 10 years and four months) EUR 16,000 EUR 500 (44)     Spatrisano v. Italy (no. 54303/00) (more than 15 years and two months) EUR 26,000 EUR 500 (45)     Tamburrini v. Italy (no. 54305/00) (approximately nine years and eight months) EUR 14,000 EUR 500 (46)     Masia v. Italy (no. 54306/00) (more than 11 years for two levels of jurisdiction) EUR 14,000 EUR 500 (47)     Mignanelli v. Italy (no. 54308/00) (more than 27 years and four months) EUR 44,000 EUR 500 (48)     Carretta v. Italy (no. 54309/00) (nine years and five months) EUR 14,000 EUR 500 (49)     Soave v. Italy (no. 54311/00) (approximately 24 years and six months) EUR 42,000 EUR 500 (50)     Manna v. Italy (no. 54312/00) (more than 29 years and four months) EUR 8,000 to each heir EUR 1,000 to each heir (51)     Castiello v. Italy (no. 54313/00) (more than 24 years and seven months) EUR 44,000 EUR 500 (52     Quacquarelli v. Italy (no. 54314/00) (more than 23 years and 10 months) EUR 41,316.55 EUR 500 (53)     Tortolani v. Italy (no. 54315/00) (more than five years and seven months) EUR 5,000 EUR 500 (54)     Betti v. Italy (no. 54316/00) (almost 24 years and nine months) EUR 12,911.42 EUR 5,057.15 (55)     Rocco Zullo v. Italy (no. 54317/00) (more than 23 years and 11 months) EUR 42,000 EUR 500 (56)     Picano v. Italy (no. 54318/00) (more than 27 years) EUR 44,000 EUR 500 (57)     Sportola v. Italy (no. 54319/00) (more than 18 years and four months for two levels of jurisdiction) EUR 28,000 EUR 500     The judgments are 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.   [2] The period given is calculated from when the writ was served on the tenant. [2] Of which the period following 30 April 1993 (seven months and three days) when Poland recognised the right of individual application can be taken into consideration. [3] The period running from 1 May 1993 until 21 June 1999. [4] The Court can only take into consideration more than 26 years and four months which is the time that has elapsed since 1 August 1973 when Italy recognised the right to individual petition;