CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 mai 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB8BC1D85 { width:347.3pt; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF27799AC { width:119.48pt; display:inline-block } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     276   23.5.2002     Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Poland and Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] :   SECTION 3   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants in the following five Turkish cases 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. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   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 and awarded each applicant the following amounts in euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage together with a total of EUR 1,100 in each case for non-pecuniary damage. (The five judgments are available only in French).       Pecuniary damage   (1)     Temur Önel v. Turkey (application no. 30446/96) EUR 87,700 (2)     Hacı Özel v. Turkey (no. 30447/96) EUR 126,000 (3)     Ahmet Önel v. Turkey (no. 30448/96) EUR 95,000 (4)     Mehmet Önel v. Turkey (no. 30948/96) EUR 87,700 (5)     Hacı Osman Özel v. Turkey (no. 31964/96) EUR 103,000   (6)     Szarapo v. Poland (no. 40835/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Anna and Joanna Szarapo, both Polish nationals, complained about the length of civil proceedings, which lasted 19 years and three months, of which the Court can take into consideration six years, nine months and 10 days [2] .   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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 of time after 1 May 1993, the date on which Poland recognised the right of individual petition