CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 4 mars 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s99B6F249 { width:33.86pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC5D7513 { width:33.9pt; display:inline-block } .sFF26FE9 { width:25.23pt; display:inline-block } .s864AADD0 { width:13.89pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sED7F8F29 { width:35.9pt; display:inline-block } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9B49264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     119   4.3.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING: Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Section 2   (1)     C.S.Y. v. Turkey (application no. 27214/95)               Violation Article 10   (2)     Yaşar Kemal Gökçeli v. Turkey (nos. 27215/95 and 36194/97)         Violation Article 10                        Non-violation Articles 6 § 2 and 7   C.S.Y., a publishing house, is a private company whose registered office is in Istanbul. Yaşar Kemal Gökçeli is a Turkish writer who was born in 1926 and lives in Istanbul.   The applicant company published two articles by Yaşar Kemal Gökçeli in the book Freedom of Expression and Turkey , which was published on 2 February 1995. The articles, entitled “The black sky over Turkey” and “May your oppression increase”, had already been published abroad. The book was a collection of articles criticising and commenting on the Turkish authorities’ policy on the “Kurdish problem” since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey.   On 2 February 1995 a judge of the National Security Court made an order for the seizure of the book on the ground that the articles in question expressly incited hostility and hatred based on a distinction according to race and ethnic origin. On the same day police officers went to the applicant company’s office to serve the seizure order. However, as all the copies of the book had been distributed, they were unable to seize them. An application by the editor of the book and the author of the articles to set aside the seizure order was refused.   Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought under section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Article 313 § 2 of the Criminal Code against the editor and the author of the articles. The first set of proceedings, concerning the article “May your oppression increase”, ended when the defendants were acquitted by the National Security Court on 1   December 1995. As regards the proceedings concerning the article “The black sky over Turkey”, in a judgment of 7 March 1996 the National Security Court found the defendants guilty of an offence under Article 312 of the Criminal Code. The editor was given a fine of 3,491,666 Turkish liras (TRL), which was suspended, and the author was sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of TRL 466,666, likewise suspended. The court observed that, taken as a whole, the article had sought to stir up hatred and hostility between citizens of Turkish origin and citizens of Kurdish origin, and to create discrimination on the grounds of race and region of origin. On 18 October 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance judgment.   In the case of C.S.Y. the applicant company submitted that the seizure of the book Freedom of Expression and Turkey had infringed its right to freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In the case of Yaşar Kemal Gökçeli v. Turkey the applicant, relying on Article 10 of the Convention, complained of interference with his right to freedom of expression on account of the fact that he had been convicted of a criminal offence for writing an article. Under Article   6 § 2, he further complained of a breach of the presumption of innocence in that the judge and the National Security Court had based their decision to seize the book on the assumption that the articles in issue were in breach of the law. Lastly, the applicant contended that his conviction had contravened Article 7 (no punishment without law).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the measures complained of amounted to interferences with the applicants’ right to respect for freedom of expression, and that they were prescribed by law. Yaşar Kemal Gökçeli’s conviction had been based on Article 312 of the Criminal Code and the seizure of the book on Article 28 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having regard to the sensitivity of the fight against terrorism and to the need for the authorities to be alert to acts capable of fuelling violence, the Court held that the interferences had pursued two aims that were compatible with Article 10 § 2: unity and national security, and territorial integrity.   The Court found that the articles in question were written in the form of a political speech, both in the content and the terms used. Using words with leftist connotations, the author criticised and reprimanded the military actions of the authorities in south-east Turkey and condemned the policy they had adopted, which, in his view, consisted of driving the Kurds away from their lands and shattering their resistance and their struggle for their autonomy in terms of culture and identity. The Court noted that the terms used in the articles were factual in content and emotional in tone with a distinctly aggressive and virulent note. Certain particularly acerbic passages painted an extremely negative picture of the Turkish authorities and gave the narrative a hostile tone. However, the Court considered that this was more a reflection of the hardened attitude of one side to the conflict than a call to violence.   On the whole the content of the articles could not be deemed to constitute an incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising: in the Court’s view, that was an essential factor to be taken into consideration. Moreover, the articles in question contained the message that “peaceful means are necessary to resolve the Kurdish problem”. The Court also noted the severity of the penalty imposed on the author. It accordingly considered that the seizure of the book and the criminal conviction of the author of the articles were measures that were not “necessary in a democratic society”. It held unanimously in both these cases that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. With regard to Yaşar Kemal Gökçeli’s allegation of a breach of the presumption of innocence, the Court noted that the seizure of the book was an interim measure with a view to bringing proceedings subsequently. The decision of the judge ordering seizure referred to a “state of suspicion” and did not contain a finding of guilt. Moreover, the subsequent proceedings did not reveal any prejudgement. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.   Concerning Yaşar Kemal Gökçeli’s allegation of a breach of Article 7, having regard to its conclusion regarding the foreseeability of the law, referred to in Article 10 § 2, the Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of this provision.   In both these cases the Court held that the finding of a violation in itself afforded adequate just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The Court awarded C.S.Y. 1,500 euros for costs and expenses. (These judgments are available only in French).   (3)     Popovici and   Others v. Romania (no. 31549/96)         Violation Article 6 § 1               No violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (4)     Stoicescu v. Romania (no. 31551/96)             Violations Article 6 § 1 (5)     Chiriacescu v. Romania (no. 31804/96)           Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Popovici and   Others : Irina Margaret Popovici, Sanda Popovici and Maria Margareta Dumitrescu are Romanian nationals. The first two applicants were born in 1930 and 1932 respectively. Mrs Dumitrescu died in 1997, but the proceedings before the Court were continued by her heir, Maria Cristina Mauc Dumitrescu, a French and Romanian national who lives in Villebon sur Yvette (France). The application concerned a property in Predeal built by the applicants’ father. The building was nationalised in 1965 and transferred to the Romanian Intelligence Service in 1992.   Stoicescu : Stefan Stoicescu is a Romanian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Bucharest. The application concerned a house in Bucharest, built by his aunt, which the State nationalised in 1950. According to information provided by the applicant, the State then sold the property to third parties.   Chiriacescu : Maria Chiriacescu was a Romanian national who was born in 1900 and lived in Bucharest. She died in 1996, but her granddaughter Maria Cristina Chiriacescu stated that she wished to continue the proceedings. The application concerned a property in Bucharest, consisting of a house divided into two flats and the adjoining land, which the State nationalised in 1950. In a decision of 1997 one of the flats was returned to her and she was awarded compensation for the second flat, which had been sold to a third party. The applicant contested that decision.   In these three cases the applicants complained of the national courts’ refusal to return their former property, which had been nationalised by the State. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained of the refusal to recognise that the courts had jurisdiction to settle actions over title to property. They complained further, under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In the Stoicescu case the applicant also argued that the Supreme Court of Justice was not independent or impartial as it had departed from its previous case-law following a speech by the President of Romania requesting the authorities not to execute decisions by which the courts had declared null and void the nationalisation of property under the communist regime. In the Chiriacescu case the applicant submitted that she had not had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.   Popovici and   Others: Finding that the refusal to recognise that the courts had jurisdiction to settle actions over title to property was in itself contrary to the right of access to a tribunal, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court noted that the proceedings had not concerned “existing property” of the applicants and that they had failed to establish that they had a “legitimate expectation” of owning the property claimed. The Court found that they were not the owners of a possession and held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded them 6,000 euros (EUR) jointly for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 120 for costs and expenses.   Stoicescu and Chiriacescu : The Court held that, by quashing court judgments which had become final, the Supreme Court of Justice had infringed the principle of legal certainty and the applicants’ right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise that the courts had jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ action to establish title to the property was in itself contrary to the right of access to a tribunal. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both those respects. With regard to the complaint, raised in the Stoicescu case, that the Supreme Court was not independent or impartial, the Court held that the statements of the Romanian President had been addressed to the authorities and that there was nothing to suggest that they had influenced the judges who had dealt with the applicant’s case. With regard to the complaint based on a violation of Article 13, raised in the Chiriacescu case, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine it.   The Court also found that the applicants’ rights of property had been established by final judgments and had therefore been irrevocable. The judgments of the Supreme Court had had the effect of depriving them of their property. In the circumstances, the Court considered that the fair balance that had to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights had been upset and that the applicants had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. Consequently the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   In the Stoicescu case the Court held that Romania should return the property to the applicant within three months of this judgment becoming final, failing which the State would have to pay the applicant EUR 270,000 for pecuniary damage. It also awarded the applicant EUR   6,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   In the Chiriacescu case the Court awarded the applicant EUR 70,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,400 for costs and expenses. (These judgments are available only in French).   (6)     Özkur and Göksungur v. Turkey (no. 37088/97)     Friendly settlement Gönül Özkur and Fatma Reyhan Göksungur are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1972 respectively. At the material time they lived in Istanbul and were active members of the HADEP political party. On 31 October 1996, officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul security police searched Ms Göksungur’s home while she was there with Ms Özkur. The applicants were arrested on suspicion of having links with an illegal armed organisation, the PKK, and were taken into police custody. On 5 November 1996 they made confessions to the police.   They appeared before the public prosecutor at the National Security Court on 8 November 1996. At his request, a medical report was issued on the same day at the Institute of Forensic Medicine. The report stated that Ms Özkur had superficial bruising on her right arm and that there was no evidence of assault on Ms Göksungur’s body. The applicants were placed in pre-trial detention on 8 November 1996 and appealed against the decision to detain them, but without success.   On 6 May 1997 the applicants were charged under Articles 168 and 169 of the Criminal Code with belonging to and aiding and abetting the PKK. At the trial they denied the accusations against them, maintaining that their statements to the police had been extracted by means of torture, and asked to be released. The National Security Court allowed their request and, in a judgment of 27 February 1998, acquitted them for lack of evidence. The prosecution appealed on points of law; those proceedings are still pending. Ms   Göksungur has fled to Germany.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the treatment to which they had been subjected while in police custody. In addition, under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complained that they had not been brought promptly before a judge, that their period in police custody had been excessively long and that they had had no means of having the lawfulness of their detention reviewed by a court.   The case has been struck out after a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to be paid 14,000 euros (EUR) for damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. The Government have also made the following declaration:   “The Government of the Republic of Turkey regret the circumstances which caused Ms   Gönül Özkur and Ms Fatma Reyhan Göksungur to lodge this application, that is, the conditions of their police custody and the position regarding the remedies available at the material time to complain of such measures, and the lack of an official investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. The Government accept that such circumstances amount to a breach of Article 5 § 3 and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention respectively and of the positive obligations potentially incumbent on the national authorities under Article 3.   “The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and take all necessary measures to ensure that the rights in question of detainees are respected in future. In that connection they refer to the legislative reforms already undertaken with regard to the terms and conditions of police custody by the successive enactment of Laws nos. 4229, 4744 and 4748 and the amendments made to the Regulation of 1 October 1998 implementing these terms and conditions. The Government also note that the recently adopted legal and administrative measures have made it possible to increase the effectiveness of investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, in circumstances similar to those of the present case. … “The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases concerning Turkey is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in the area of the protection of human rights. To this end, co-operation necessary to achieve this objective will continue to take place.” (The judgment is available only in French).   (7)     Posokhov v. Russia (no. 63486/00)                                                   Violation Article 6 § 1 Sergey Vitalyevich Posokhov was born in 1966 and lives in Taganrog (Russia).   Mr Posokhov worked for the Taganrog Customs Board, supervising the clearance of imported goods at a seaport customs post. In 1996 criminal proceedings were brought against him for the alleged smuggling of considerable amounts of vodka.   On 22 May 2000, Neklinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region, composed of Judge Kink and two lay judges ( narodnye zasedateli ), Ms Streblyanskaya and Ms Khovyakova, found the applicant guilty of being an accessory in the avoidance of customs duties and of   abuse of office. However, the applicant was not required to serve his sentence, partly because of the expiry of a statutory limitation period and partly because of a 1997 amnesty law.   In his appeal the applicant challenged the bench that had delivered the judgment, alleging a breach of the rules on the appointment of lay assessors. In particular, he submitted that, whereas the Federal Law on the Lay Judges of the Federal Courts of General Jurisdiction (the Lay Judges Act) allowed lay judges to be called once a year for a maximum period of 14 days, or for as long as a specific case lasted, Ms   Streblyanskaya and Ms Khovyakova had been acting in this capacity in 2000 for at least 88 days prior to his trial and that Ms   Streblyanskaya’s term of office had expired.   The applicant’s appeals were dismissed, as were his two requests for supervisory review ( prineseniye protesta v poryadke nadzora ) in which he also complained that the lay judges’ names had not been drawn by lot as required by the Lay Judges Act.   Concerning the applicant’s earlier complaint concerning assessors’ term of office, he was informed that a Presidential Decree of 25 January 2000 had extended their terms of office pending new appointments.   On 2 October 2001 the applicant was informed that the list of lay judges for the Neklinovskiy District for the period 10 to 22   May 2000 had been compiled on 4 February 2000.   Following an application for a supervisory review of the case, the judgment of 22 May 2000 was quashed and the case re-examined.   On 2 July 2001, Neklinovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of the same offences but relieved him from serving the sentence under the statute of limitations. This judgment was also quashed, however, following a further application for supervisory review, on the ground that the courts were not in a position to decide on the applicant’s guilt because the whole case was time-barred.   On 4 October 2002, Neklinovskiy District Authority informed the applicant that there was no record of any adoption of lay assessors’ lists before 4   February 2000.   The applicant alleged that he was convicted by a court composed in breach of the relevant domestic law. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal). He initially claimed that the two lay judges had, contrary to section 9 of the Act, been acting as lay judges prior to his trial for longer than the maximum 14 days per year and that their names had not been drawn by lot, in breach of section   5 of the Act. He subsequently also complained that there was no proof that they had ever been appointed as lay judges, even before the enactment of the Lay Judges Act.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that it was particularly struck by the fact that Neklinovskiy District Authority – the body responsible for the appointment of lay judges – had confirmed that it had no list of lay judges appointed before 4 February 2000. The authority had thus failed to present any legal grounds for the participation of Ms Streblyanskaya and Ms Khovyakova in the administration of justice on the day of the applicant’s trial, bearing in mind that the list adopted on 4 February 2000 only took effect on 15 June 2000.   Finding that Neklinovskiy District Court could not be regarded as a “tribunal established by law”, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is in English only.)   Section 4   (8)     Jantner v. Slovakia (no. 39050/97)                       No violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 No violation Article 14 Armand Jantner, a Slovakian and German national, left Czechoslovakia for Germany in 1968.   In 1990 he started living part-time in both countries, spending, he claims, most of 1992 in Czechoslovakia. On 25 September 1992 he registered his permanent residence at his friend’s address in Krompachy. He remained registered at this address until 22 June 1994. On 28 September 1992 he lodged a claim for restitution of his father’s and uncle’s property under the Land Ownership Act of 1991.   His claim was dismissed on the ground that, at the relevant time, he had not been living permanently within the territory of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic as required by Section 4(1) of the Land Ownership Act. On 29 November 1996 Košice Regional Court upheld the decision, adding that, under Section 4(1) of the Citizens’ Residence Registration Act of 1982, citizens could not permanently live at more than one address at the same time. As the applicant failed to terminate the registration of his main home in Germany prior to the registration of his permanent residence in Krompachy, his stay in the then Czechoslovakia had to be regarded as temporary. The Regional Court further held, among other things, that a police report indicated that the applicant’s registration in Krompachy had been of a formal nature.     On 30 July 1999 the Supreme Court refused to re-examine the case as there was no remedy available against the Regional Court’s judgment.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was violated and that he was discriminated against as a result of the dismissal of his claim for restitution of property. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The European Court of Human Rights considered that it could not substitute its view for that of Košice Regional Court on the applicant’s compliance with the permanent residence requirement laid down in Section 4(1) of the Land Ownership Act of 1991.   Thus, under the relevant law, as applied and interpreted by domestic authorities, the applicant neither had a right nor a claim amounting to a legitimate expectation to obtain restitution of the property in question and therefore no “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court further recalled that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not guarantee the right to acquire property. Nor could it be interpreted as imposing any restrictions on Slovakia’s freedom to choose when to restore property which had been transferred to it before it ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, neither the decisions complained of by the applicant nor the application of the Land Ownership Act of 1991 in his case amounted to an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Having found that the proceedings complained of did not concern the applicant’s “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court further held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14. (The judgment is in English only.)   (9)     A.B. v. Slovakia (no. 41784/98)                                                      Violation Article 6 § 1   The applicant is a Slovakian national.   She claimed an increase in her invalidity pension under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act of 1991 which was designed to redress certain infringements of property and social rights which had occurred between 1948 and 1990. Her claim was dismissed because she had not submitted a certificate from her former employer certifying that she had been dismissed for reasons of political persecution. She appealed unsuccessfully. She received the certificate on 14 October 1996, whereupon she resubmitted her claim for an adjustment of her invalidity pension. On 30 October 1996 it was dismissed again by the relevant administrative authority because her contract of employment had been terminated in the course of the same year as she had acquired the right to an invalidity pension. She sought judicial review of this decision and requested a lawyer to be appointed to represent her in the proceedings, explaining that her disability prevented her from attending court in person and that the case might raise complex questions of law.   The applicant was summoned to a hearing scheduled for 25 February 1997. She was informed that as representation was not compulsory the court could not appoint a defence lawyer to assist her. On 14 February 1997 she repeated her request for a lawyer to be appointed and asked for the hearing to be adjourned rather than held in her absence. On 1   April 1997 the Regional Court upheld the administrative decision, and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment on 29   September 1997. She unsuccessfully lodged an appeal on points of law.   The applicant alleged that her right to a fair hearing had been infringed in that her requests for a lawyer to be appointed had not been granted; the courts had determined her claim in her absence; and their decisions had been arbitrary. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The European Court of Human Rights found that, by failing to take a formal decision on the applicant’s request for a lawyer to be appointed and proceeding with the case in her absence, the domestic courts had deprived the applicant of the opportunity of presenting her case on equal terms with the defendant. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court reiterated that Article 6 did not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which were therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts. As it therefore had only limited powers to examine errors of fact or law allegedly committed by national courts, it found that there had been no separate violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the allegedly arbitrary dismissal of the applicant’s claim.   The Court did not consider it necessary also to examine the case under Article 13. It awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is in English only.)     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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.