CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 juillet 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 } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC1E922B6 { width:20.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA3C88501 { width:96.31pt; display:inline-block } .sB909AFA { width:161.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC1EA6231 { width:170.33pt; display:inline-block } .s26C74F33 { width:168.33pt; display:inline-block } .s7F6B016F { width:165.68pt; display:inline-block } .s4B032A1A { width:158.35pt; display:inline-block } .s544223FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.25pt } .s25BFAABB { width:20.58pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s660DD4FA { width:21.3pt; display:inline-block } .s1AE6489F { width:14.15pt; display:inline-block } .sDBC01B75 { width:162.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA2FABDDD { width:275.75pt; display:inline-block } .s23A325C6 { width:139.67pt; display:inline-block } .sFADAF44D { width:172.35pt; display:inline-block } .s796BDE8F { width:14.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD96BC27F { width:153.65pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB2A34B00 { width:14.66pt; display:inline-block } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .sF2178C91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0.55pt } .s976CFF0C { width:11.3pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9E4B4E36 { width:299.29pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s197997E4 { width:325.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s25D0E658 { width:19.94pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2E548356 { width:174.56pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1FCAD582 { width:149.88pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1ACBB620 { width:156.54pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s25E6A371 { width:40.03pt; display:inline-block } .s80845FBB { width:120.7pt; display:inline-block } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB4D5CB4E { width:4.94pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     513   10.7.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING AUSTRIA, FRANCE AND TURKEY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23 Chamber judgments (of which only the friendly settlements are final [1] ).   Section 1     Friendly settlement In the following 11 Turkish judgments, the applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained about not having been brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power following their arrest, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the European Convention on Human Rights. They also complained of being ill-treated while in police custody, relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and that they were denied a fair hearing before the Istanbul State Security Court, within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 3 c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing). They further relied on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the amounts in French francs (FRF) listed below inclusive of costs and expenses are to be paid to the applicants on an ex gratia basis. (The judgments are available only in French.)   (1)   Kürküt v. Turkey (application no. 24933/94)   FRF 36,000 (2)   Değer v. Turkey (no. 24934/94)   FRF 206,000 (3)   Avcı v. Turkey (no. 24935/94)   FRF 206,000 (4)   Orak v. Turkey (no. 24936/94)   FRF 203,000 (5)   Boğa v. Turkey (no. 24938/94)   FRF 203,000 (6)   Doğan v. Turkey (no. 24939/94)   FRF 206,000 (7)   Parlak, Aktürk and Tay v. Turkey (nos. 24942/94, 24943/94 and 25125/94)     Suna Parlak and Rahima Aktürk   FRF 216,000     Hatice Tay   FRF 200,000 (8)   Kızılgedik v. Turkey (no. 24944/94)   FRF 200,000 (9)   Boğ v. Turkey (no. 24946/94)   FRF 194,000 (10)   Demir v. Turkey (no. 24990/94)   FRF 191,000 (11)   Şenses v. Turkey (no. 24991/94)   FRF 188,000   Friendly settlement (12)   K. Aydın, C. Aydın and S. Aydın and Others v. Turkey (nos. 28293/95, 29494/95 and 30219/96) The 12 applicants, all Turkish nationals are: Kasım, Cemal, Sultan, Arife, Nuriye, Kemal, Ali Aziz, Yıldız, Songül, Gülbahar and Eser Aydın and Şirin Erenler-Aydın. They complained of the disappearance of their husband and father and the alleged destruction by security forces of their family home, property and animals in Sarısaltık village in south-east Turkey. They relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3, 5 (right to liberty and security), 6, 8 (right to respect for family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 68,000 pounds sterling inclusive of costs and expenses is to be paid on an ex gratia basis. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Friendly settlements In the following cases, the applicants complained about the length of time they were held in police custody, relying on Article 5 § 3. (The number of days in custody is indicated in brackets.)   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the amounts listed below inclusive of costs and expenses are to be paid to the applicants on an ex gratia basis. ( Özçelik and others v. Turkey is available only in French and the other two only in English.)   (13)   Özçelik and others v. Turkey (no. 29425/95) (eight to 12 days) Ferhan Özçelik, Selhan Tekin, Fikri Demir, Arap Doğan   & Nedim Öndeş   FRF 27,000 Yahya Kezer   FRF 15,000 Ali Durç   FRF 21,000   (14)   Fidan, Çağro And Özarslaner v. Turkey (nos.   29883/96, 29884/96 and 29885/96) (eight to nine days) Hikmet Fidan, Ferhan Türk, Şehmus Çağro and Şahabettin Özarslaner   FRF 100,000   (15)   Mutlu and Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 30495/96) (eight days) Abdullah Mutlu and Necmettin   Yıldız   FRF 40,000     Friendly settlements In the following cases, the applicants complained about the length of their detention in police custody. They also complained there was no remedy to challenge the lawfulness of their detention and no right to compensation. They relied on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5.   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   (16)     Yeşiltepe v. Turkey (no. 28011/95)   FRF 37,000 (17)     Çakmak v. Turkey (no. 31882/96)   FRF 45,000 The applicants in the following 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. Article 1 of Protocol No.1.   (18)   Küçük v. Turkey (no. 26398/95)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant 92,590 American dollars (USD) for pecuniary damage and USD 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and USD 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (19)   Ertuğrul v. Turkey (no. 35849/97)   Friendly settlement The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which USD 50,687 is to be paid for any damage and costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Section 3   No violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 6 § 2 (20)   Lamanna v. Austria (no. 28923/95) Salvatore Lamanna, a French national, who was held in remand and subsequently acquitted of attempted murder, aggravated robbery and the unlawful possession of a weapon, applied unsuccessfully for compensation. He complained that Salzburg Regional Court and Linz Court of Appeal dismissed his compensation claim on the ground that the suspicion against him had not been dispelled, which violated the presumption of innocence, laid down in Article 6 § 2. He also relied on Article 6 §§ 1, in that the decisions were not delivered publicly.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the Salzburg Regional Court’s decision of 10   October 1994 – although taken after a public hearing of the applicant’s compensation claim – was not delivered publicly as it was dependent on his acquittal becoming final. Instead, it was served in writing on 4   November   1994. The decision by the Linz Court of Appeal of 1   February   1995, which contained a summary of the Regional Court’s decision, confirmed its application of section 2 § 1 (b) of the 1969 Act and rendered its decision final, was initially also delivered in writing and was not rendered public by any other means. However, following the Supreme Court’s judgment of 9 November 2000, it was delivered publicly on 9   February 2001.   Having regard to the compensation proceedings as a whole as well as to their specific features, the Court found that the purpose of Article 6 § 1, namely subjecting court decisions to public scrutiny, thus enabling the public to study the manner in which the courts generally approached compensation claims for detention on remand, was achieved in the present case by the public delivery of the appellate court’s judgment.   In considering the complaint raised under Article 6 § 2, the Court recalled that once an acquittal had become final, the voicing of any suspicions of guilt, including those expressed in the reasons for the acquittal, was incompatible with the presumption of innocence. Both the Salzburg Regional Court and the Linz Court of Appeal made statements in the compensation proceedings following the applicant’s final acquittal, expressing the view that there was a continuing suspicion against him, thus casting doubt on his innocence.   The Court held, unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 and that there had been a violation of Article 6 §2. Finding no causal link between the breach of the Convention found and the alleged pecuniary damage for loss of earnings suffered as a result of his detention on remand, the Court made no award for damage. The applicant was awarded 75,135 Austrian schillings for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (21)   Versini v. France (no. 40096/98) Jean-Luc Versini, a French national complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), about the length of civil proceedings (lasting approximately eight years and four months) he brought against a local authority for restitution of plots of his family’s land and for compensation. He also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint raised under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded the applicant FRF 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 20,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (22)   Tricard v. France (no. 40472/98) Jean-Hugues Tricard, a French national, complained that the calculation of the period for lodging his appeal, according to certain provisions which did not take account of the time necessary for delivering post to French Polynesia, had deprived him of the possibility of defending himself and making use of his rights in the Court of Cassation.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant FRF 30,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (23)   Charles v. France (no. 41145/98) Raymond and Fernande Charles, both French nationals, complained about the length of civil proceedings before the Court of Cassation which lasted a little more than four years and nine months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants FRF 35,000 for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 19,136 for costs and expenses. (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.