CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 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 } .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 } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s36452AFE { width:186.45pt; display:inline-block } .sB381A96F { width:259.82pt; display:inline-block } .s755534E2 { width:146.46pt; display:inline-block } .sDF3D5273 { width:305.19pt; display:inline-block } .s7D720DFD { width:210.46pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s1B15F62A { width:298.5pt; display:inline-block } .s56CB20FD { width:297.17pt; display:inline-block } .s3E816588 { width:207.83pt; display:inline-block } .s1CB6FB53 { width:303.18pt; display:inline-block } .sB41C9EC5 { width:98.8pt; display:inline-block } .s131AFC18 { width:348.91pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sC4EBD08D { width:268.9pt; display:inline-block } .sF70B707A { width:233.9pt; display:inline-block } .sB6004602 { width:25.92pt; display:inline-block } .s2E6B165D { width:5.67pt; display:inline-block } .s2CEA8CB3 { width:34.58pt; display:inline-block } .s554DAA5A { width:41.68pt; display:inline-block } .s983C09C3 { width:61.09pt; display:inline-block } .s83B9297D { width:13pt; display:inline-block } .s35873791 { width:65.76pt; display:inline-block } .sAB55E796 { width:26.35pt; display:inline-block } .s1E334AD6 { width:58.41pt; display:inline-block } .sEDB370AC { width:19.68pt; 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 } .s19E53254 { width:2.39pt; 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   534   17.7.2001   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 10 Chamber judgments (only Sadak and Others v. Turkey and the friendly settlements are final [1] ):   SECTION 1   Friendly settlements In the following five Turkish judgments the applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained about the length of time they were held in police custody, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The number of days spent in custody is indicated in brackets).   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the amounts indicated below in French francs (FRF) are to be paid for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to each applicant. Costs and expenses are to be paid as a global sum to all the applicants. (The judgments are available only in French.)   (1)     Karatepe and Kırt v. Turkey (nos. 28013/95 and 28017/95) (nine days) Mustafa Karatepe and Cansur Kırt   FRF 18,000 Costs and expenses   FRF 10,000   (2)     Okuyucu, Kara and Bilmen v. Turkey   (nos. 28014/95, 28015/95 and 28016/95) (seven to ten days) Mehmet Şirin Okuyucu and Fatma Bilmen   FRF 15,000 Ahmet Kara   FRF 20,000 Costs and expenses   FRF 15,000   (3)     Bağcı and Murğ v. Turkey (no. 29862/96) (eight days) Seyfettin Bağcı and Adil Murğ   FRF 15,000 Costs and expenses   FRF 10,000 (4)     Çaloğlu v. Turkey (no. 32450/96) (10 and 11 days) İlhan Çaloğlu   FRF 24,000 Vahit Çaloğlu   FRF 21,000 Costs and expenses   FRF 10,000   (5)     Demir, Demir and Gül v. Turkey (nos. 29866/96, 29867/96 and 29872/96) (10 and 12 days) Çelebi Demir and Musa Demir   FRF 21,000 Senanik Gül   FRF 27,000 Costs and expenses   FRF 12,000     (6)     Pogorzelec v. Poland (no. 29455/95)       Violation Article 6 § 1 Sylwester Pogorzelec, a Polish national born in 1947, is or was a party to four sets of civil proceedings, three of which are still pending. The length of the proceedings ranges from four years and six months to 17 years and 11 months [2] .   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the Convention concerning three of the four sets of proceedings and awarded the applicant 50,000 Polish zlotys for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment exists only in French.)     Violation Article 6 Violation Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) (7)     Sadak and Others v. Turkey (nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96) The four applicants, all former parliamentarians and members of the former Democracy Party (DEP), were accused of having committed treason, under section 125 of the Turkish Penal Code, punishable by the death penalty, in relation to activities allegedly undertaken in the name of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and declarations in support of the PKK.   On 8 December 1994 they were convicted by the Ankara State Security Court to 15 year’s imprisonment for belonging to an armed organisation, under section 168 of the Penal Code, but the charges under section 125 were thrown out.   They complained that they were denied a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, particularly in view of the presence of a military judge among the State Security Court judges who convicted them. They also alleged, relying on Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that they were convicted for putting forward, as parliamentarians, the views of the Kurdish population in Turkey and of having developed peaceful solutions to the Kurdish question.   Finding that the Ankara State Security Court was not an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6. The Court further held, unanimously, that the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) had been violated, in that they had not been informed in time of modifications to the charges against them and that they had not been able to have key witnesses questioned. Unanimously, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints raised under Article 6. Having found that that the applicants’ membership of an illegal armed organisation was not established following a fair trial, within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, the Court held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaints raised under Articles 10, 11 or 14.   The Court awarded 25,000 American dollars (USD) to each applicant for damage and a total of USD 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment exists only in French.)       Violations Article 1 of Protocol 1 In the following three Turkish judgments, the 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 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).   The Court awarded the following global sums for just satisfaction:     pecuniary   non-pecuniary   costs and   damage   damage   expenses (8)     M.T. and others v. Turkey   (no. 34502/97)   USD 117,928   USD 26,000 USD 8,000 (9)     A.T. and others v. Turkey (no. 37040/97)   USD 1,148   USD 500 USD 500 (10)     E.A. and others v. Turkey (no. 38379/97)   USD 61,818   USD 5,000 USD 3,000   ***   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 Contact:   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] of which the Court can only take into consideration the period of time after Poland recognised the right of individual petition on 1 May 1993; ie. eight years, one month and 25 days.