CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 juin 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF92F5487 { width:269.35pt; display:inline-block } .s6123F51 { width:26.59pt; display:inline-block } .s74EEEBA0 { width:99.2pt; display:inline-block } .sB83D920 { width:15.23pt; display:inline-block } .s20821E70 { width:40.5pt; display:inline-block } .s53D4691F { width:35.23pt; display:inline-block } .sC2250E92 { width:36.56pt; display:inline-block } .s2CEA8CB3 { width:34.58pt; display:inline-block } .s56A92D26 { width:17.23pt; display:inline-block } .sAE5AF71F { width:49.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4B00EDBF { width:33.83pt; display:inline-block } .s4C87F40F { width:19.24pt; display:inline-block } .s86F9BD51 { width:36.58pt; display:inline-block } .sE0D54F1 { width:35.89pt; display:inline-block } .s683A9ECB { width:31.23pt; display:inline-block } .sD62A0CC7 { width:15.9pt; display:inline-block } .s73C3FE6D { width:51.24pt; display:inline-block } .s62712926 { width:41.9pt; display:inline-block } .s5932A8F7 { width:37.89pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA707E6 { width:47.25pt; display:inline-block } .s9A1F34BB { width:21.91pt; display:inline-block } .s2392424E { width:29.91pt; display:inline-block } .sA6E0ABA3 { width:20.59pt; display:inline-block } .sF9D404D6 { width:17.24pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFB6C6D73 { width:148.8pt; display:inline-block } .sC8DB3A12 { width:382.75pt; display:inline-block } .s6E4F1B93 { width:85.47pt; display:inline-block } .s215BF811 { width:108.11pt; display:inline-block } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .s546EAE0 { width:58.82pt; 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     398   5.6.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 25 Chamber judgments (only Koç v. Turkey,   Ekinci v. Turkey and Holder v. the Netherlands are final [1] ):   SECTION 1                      Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 In the following 20 Turkish cases, 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) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time). The Court awarded each applicant the following amounts in American dollars (USD) for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, together with a total of USD 300 in each case for costs and expenses:     Pecuniary damage   non-pecuniary     damage (1)     Gülnahar Çalkan v. Turkey (no. 19661/92)   USD 8,031   (2)     Rabia Çalkan v. Turkey (no. 19662/92)   USD 8,031 (3)     Ekrem Çapar v. Turkey (no. 19663/92)   USD 9,288 (4)     Hamdi Çelebi v. Turkey (no. 19664/92)   USD 14,167 (5)     Seyfettin Çalkan v. Turkey (no. 19665/92)   USD 8,031 (6)     Nuri Çapar v. Turkey (no. 19666/92)   USD 19,658   USD 1,000 (7)     Hayrettin Dalgıç v. Turkey (no. 19668/92)   USD 1,211   USD 1,000 (8)     Necati Dalgıç v. Turkey (no. 19669/92)   USD 6,652   USD 1,000 (9)     Dursun Dişçi v. Turkey (no. 19670/92)   USD 27,986   USD 1,000 (10)     Hasan Dişçi v. Turkey (no. 19671/92)   USD 25,999   USD 1,000 (11)     Osman Dişçi v. Turkey (no. 19672/92)   USD 25,999   USD 1,000 (12)     Davut Güneysu v. Turkey (no. 19673/92)   USD 3,410   USD 1,000 (13)     Ali Kartal v. Turkey (no. 19674/92)   USD 2,892   USD 1,000 (14)     Hasan Koç v. Turkey (no. 19675/92)   USD 7,728   USD 1,000 (15)     Ayşe Koçer v. Turkey (no. 19676/92)   USD 1,084   USD 1,000 (16)     Ali Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19678/92)   USD 18,725   (17)     Gülfiye Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19679/92)   USD 12,655   USD 1,000 (18)     Kamil Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19681/92)   USD 2,144 (19)     Muhsin Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19682/92)   USD 15,566 (20)     Mustafa Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19683/92)   USD 28,302     (21)     Koç v. Turkey (no. 24937/94)   Friendly settlements (22)     Ekinci v. Turkey (no. 24947/94) Fırat Koç and Lalihan Ekinci, both Turkish nationals, complained, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), of the delay in being brought before a judge following their arrest. Furthermore, relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complained of being ill-treated in police custody. They further alleged that they had been discriminated against, relying on Article 14 (freedom from discrimination) in conjunction with Article 5 § 3. Finally they complained of not having received a fair trial relying on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 c (right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance of one’s own choosing), alone and in conjunction with Article 14.   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which 51,000 French francs (FRF) in the case of Koç v. Turkey and FRF 48,000 in the case of Ekinci v. Turkey is to be paid on an ex gratia basis for all their claims including costs and expenses. The judgments are available only in French.   (23)     Holder v. the Netherlands (no. 33258/96)   Friendly settlement Robby Holder, a Dutch national, complained that, on two occasions the judicial authorities failed to inform him of the date on which a hearing would take place in criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c). The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 1,000 Netherlands guilders (NLG) is to be paid on an ex gratia basis and NLG 4,851.73 for costs and expenses. The judgment is available only in English.   (24)     Gaganuş and others v. Turkey (application no. 39335/98)       Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Fatma Gaganuş, Aysel Gedik, Gülser Savaş and Nihat Savaş, all Turkish nationals, 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. They also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants USD 5,392 for pecuniary damage, USD 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and USD 2,000 for costs and expenses. The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13. The judgment is available only in French.   SECTION 3   (25)     Mills v. the United Kingdom (no. 35685/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Simon Mills, a British national, while serving in the Army was tried by a court-martial convened under the Army Act 1955. He complained under Article 6 § 1 that he did not have a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.   The Court found that a district army court-martial convened under the Army Act 1955 did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in view, in particular, of the central part played by the convening officer [2] . The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that a finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. It awarded him 1,000 pounds sterling for costs and expenses. (Judgment 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] See also Findlay v. the United Kingdom (25 February 1997), Coyne v. the United Kingdom (24 September 1997) and Cable and Others v. the United Kingdom (18 February 1999)