CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 janvier 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 } .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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s2E2FCFA { width:33.23pt; display:inline-block } .sBFCDDFAF { width:2.52pt; display:inline-block } .s9269B87C { width:9.86pt; display:inline-block } .sAB712CB { width:5.19pt; display:inline-block } .s18645E97 { width:16.56pt; display:inline-block } .sE81FCFEF { width:3.85pt; display:inline-block } .sC74F138C { width:10.55pt; display:inline-block } .s864AADD0 { width:13.89pt; display:inline-block } .s95444FF0 { width:29.84pt; display:inline-block } .s22616DFB { width:17.89pt; display:inline-block } .s5B17C3EF { width:27.23pt; display:inline-block } .s6D6D4050 { width:15.16pt; display:inline-block } .s88D5A2E2 { width:6.57pt; display:inline-block } .sE8878FF7 { width:24.52pt; display:inline-block } .sB7D5F6D0 { width:20.49pt; display:inline-block } .s280B359E { width:3.84pt; display:inline-block } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .s2458A595 { width:21.23pt; display:inline-block } .s8CF7B32A { width:7.23pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s8C1B0898 { width:140.15pt; display:inline-block } .s79054190 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF5FE69E3 { width:26.58pt; display:inline-block } .sE9FB6D34 { width:23.25pt; display:inline-block } .s6C8591A { width:13.22pt; display:inline-block } .s5E81267D { width:28.56pt; display:inline-block } .sEF11B80B { width:8.57pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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     67   30.1.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: Turkey and Austria   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 30 Chamber judgments (only Holzinger v. Austria and Cihan v. Turkey are final [1] ):   Section 1 Violation Article 1 Protocol No.1 In the following 24 Turkish cases, the 74 applicants, all Turkish nationals, 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 eventually received did not take into account the real increase in inflation during the period between the date the amount was fixed and the date of payment.   In each case 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. Each applicant was awarded 1,000 US Dollars (USD) for non-pecuniary damage. A total of USD 300 was awarded for costs and expenses in each case. The amounts for pecuniary damage are indicated below. (All 24 judgments are available only in French.)   (1)     Aktaş and others v. Turkey (application no. 19264/92) (Two applicants)     USD     642. (2)     Atak and others v. Turkey (no. 19265/92) (Five applicants)              USD 5,491. (3)     Baltekin v. Turkey (no. 19266/92)                      USD 1,663. (4)     Mehmet Bilgin and others v. Turkey (no. 19267/92) (Three applicants)       USD 8,112. (5)     Saniye Bilgin and others v. Turkey (no. 19268/92) (Five applicants)          USD 6,922. (6)     Bozkurt and others v. Turkey (no. 19269/92) (13 applicants)            USD 7,161. (7)     İlhan Buzcu and others v. Turkey (no. 19270/92) (Three applicants)          USD 2,127. (8)     Nuriye Buzcu v. Turkey (no. 19271/92)                  USD     200. (9)     Çalkan and others v. Turkey (no. 19272/92) (Four applicants)            USD 3,453. (10)     Çapar v. Turkey (no. 19273/92)                  USD 1,898. (11)     Hamdi Çelebi v. Turkey (no. 19274/92)                USD 2,998. (12)     Yusuf Çelebi v. Turkey (no. 19275/92)                                      USD 1,217. (13)     Çiplak and others v. Turkey (no. 19276/92) (Three applicants)           USD 2,774. (14)     Daniş v. Turkey (no. 19277/92)                     USD 4,470. (15)     Erol v. Turkey (no. 19278/92)                     USD     216. (16)     Göçmen and others v. Turkey (no. 19279/92) (Seven applicants)              USD 3,200. (17)     Gökgöz v. Turkey (no. 19280/92)                      USD 7,260. (18)     Gökmen and others v. Turkey (no. 19281/92) (Four applicants)              USD 4,293. (19)     Ayşe Işik and others v. Turkey (no. 19283/92) (Four applicants)              USD 4,407. (20)     Yilmaz Işik v. Turkey (no. 19284/92) (Four applicants)                USD 1,223. (21)     Cemıle Karabulut and others v. Turkey (no. 19285/92) (Six applicants)        USD 1,134. (22)     Sefer Karabulut v. Turkey (no. 19286/92)                    USD 1,303. (23)     Özen v. Turkey (no. 19287/92)                        USD 1,400. (24)     Öztekin v. Turkey (no. 19288/92)                      USD 1,192.   (25 ) Cihan v. Turkey (no. 25724/94)   Friendly Settlement Ahmet Cihan, a Turkish national, alleged that neither he nor his next of kin were informed of the reasons for his arrest on 8 March 1994 and that he was not brought promptly before a judge while in police custody between 8 and 15 March 1994. He argued that his arrest was “arbitrary” because he was released without having been brought before a judge and without criminal proceedings having been instituted against him. He also complained that, under Turkish law, particularly the provisions of the State Security Courts Act, the authorities can arrest people without any reasonable grounds and place them in police custody for 15 days without a review by a judge. He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) §§ 2, 3 and 5.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 30,000 French francs (FRF) is to be paid for any damage and FRF 20,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Section 3   The following five Austrian judgments are available only in English.   (26)     Holzinger v. Austria (no. 23459/94)               Non exhaustion Adolf Holzinger, an Austrian national, complained about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted five years and six months (from 16 May 1988 to 4 March 1993). He relied on Article 6 § 1, claiming his civil rights were not decided within a reasonable time.   The European Court of Human Rights found that Mr Holzinger failed to make an application under Section 91 (Section 91) of the Courts Act, when it entered into force on 1 January 1990, which would have been an effective remedy. Consequently, the Austrian authorities had been denied an opportunity, guaranteed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, to prevent or put right the alleged violation. The Court therefore held unanimously that it was unable to rule on the merits of the case because the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.   (27)     Holzinger (no. 2) v. Austria (no. 28898/95)             Violation Article 6 § 1 Mr Holzinger (as above) complained about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than 11-and-a-half years (from 8 July 1987 to 20 January 1999). The European Court of Human Rights found that, in this case, the period during which the applicant had no remedy available (before he could apply under Section 91) lasted around two-and-a-half years, which was “substantial”. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 30,000 Austrian schillings (ATS) for non-pecuniary damage and ATS 1,555 for costs and expenses. (28)     Basic v. Austria (no. 29800/96)               Non exhaustion Husein Basic, a Yugoslav national, complained about the length of proceedings relating to the seizure and forfeiture of a watch (two sets of criminal proceedings lasting three years and nine months and four years and six months and one set of “object liability proceedings” lasting three years and two months).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that, under Austrian law, administrative authorities would generally be bound to reach a decision concerning Mr Basic’s complaint within six months. As this lime limit had been exceeded, Mr Basic would have been able to lodge an application under Article 132 of the Federal Constitution (Article 132), which, if declared admissible, would have resulted in the authority concerned being ordered to give a decision within three months, an order which would have been renewable only once. The Court therefore found that an application under Article 132 would have provided the applicant with an effective remedy. However, as he did not make such an application at any stage in the proceedings, the Court held unanimously that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.   (29)     Pallanich v. Austria (no. 30160/96)                        Non exhaustion Georg Pallanich, an Austrian national, complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him relating to charges of smuggling, which lasted four years and two months. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that, as the applicant had not made an application under Article 132 (see Basic v. Austria above) he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.   (30)     Walder v. Austria (no. 33915/96)             Violation Article 6 § 1 Franz Walder, an Austrian national, complained about land consolidation proceedings to which he was a party, which, he claimed, lasted more than 25 years. The European Court of Human Rights calculated that the period to be taken into consideration started when the applicant opposed the provisional transfer of land on 28 May 1974. The proceedings therefore lasted just over 22 years. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant ATS 200,000 for non-pecuniary damage and ATS 25,000 for cost and expenses.   *** 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.