CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F631BDC { width:160.15pt; display:inline-block } .s4BBD9D4C { width:116.13pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     407   24.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Russia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Violation Article 6 § 1 (1)     Ryabykh v. Russia (application no. 52854/99) No violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Final judgment set aside on application by State official and no compensation for drop in savings   Anna Ivanovna Ryabykh ( Анна Ивановна Рябых) , a Russian national, was born in 1949 and lives in Ninovka, a village in the Belgorod region of Russia. She sued the Savings Bank of Russia and the State for the drop in value of her personal savings after the economic reforms in 1991. She alleged that her savings had been the result of decades of hard work and that she had intended to buy a flat with the money.   In June 1998 the District Court awarded Ms Ryabykh 133,963.70 roubles (RUR) in a judgment which became final on 18 June 1998. While enforcement proceedings were in progress, the President of the Regional Court applied for supervisory review of the judgment. The judgment was set aside by the Presidium of the Regional Court on 19 March 1999 and the applicant’s claims dismissed. She had neither been informed that the application had been lodged nor invited to attend the hearing. Subsequently, four further judgments were delivered and four appeals lodged, before judgment in her favour became final on 10 June 2002.   Ms Ryabykh and a deputy president of the Government of the Belgorod Region reached a settlement on 1 November 2002 in which the applicant promised to abandon her claims in return for RUR   248,724 (approximately 7,905 euros (EUR)). The Government bought her a flat in Novyi Oskol for RUR   330,000 (approximately EUR   10,489). On 23 March 2003 the applicant informed the European Court of Human Rights that the price of the flat did not cover her loss because her savings in 1991, if converted to US dollars, exceeded the price of the flat. She asked the Court to recover the difference from the State.   Ms Ryabykh complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that a final judgment in her favour had been set aside in proceedings that had been unfair. She complained further, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that the State had not revalued her savings to take account of inflation.   The Court noted that the supervisory review of the final judgment had been initiated by the President of the Regional Court, who had not been party to the proceedings. The Presidium of the Regional Court had then dismissed all the applicant’s claims and closed the matter. This had nullified an entire judicial process that had ended in a legally binding decision. The Court held that, by using the supervisory-review procedure to set aside the final judgment, the Presidium had infringed the principle of legal certainty and thus the applicant’s right to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision.   The Court noted that the State had provided the applicant with a flat worth more than the amount to which she had initially been entitled, even after taking inflation into account. It reiterated that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not oblige States to maintain the purchasing power of sums deposited with financial institutions. Neither did they have an obligation to compensate for losses caused by inflation. It followed that there had been no violation of that provision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Gür v. Turkey (no. 35983/97)   Friendly settlement   Delay in payment of additional compensation for expropriation   Mustafa and Osman Gür are Turkish nationals who were born in 1950 in 1954 respectively and live in İzmir. They owned a piece of land in İzmir which was expropriated in 1990 for the purposes of a road-building project. In 1991 the domestic courts awarded them additional compensation for the expropriation, together with default interest at a rate of 30% per annum. The applicants duly received the sum of almost 479 million Turkish liras in October 1996.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicants alleged that the delay in the payment of the additional compensation and the inadequacy of the interest rates applied to State debts had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive 43,000 United States dollars for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Yusuf Kaya v. Turkey (no. 28018/95)   Friendly settlement   Independence and impartiality of National Security Court   Yusuf Kaya is a Turkish national who was born in 1964.   On 18 April 1993 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody at the security police headquarters in Istanbul. He was placed in pre-trial detention on 21 April 1993. On 30 May 1994 he was sentenced by the National Security Court to four years and six months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an armed gang.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant complained that his case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the National Security Court.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive 6,098 euros for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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)   Joanna Reynell (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. [Note1]   Press release for grouped judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: [case name +] [day +] month[s] + year + language [+ case names] (e.g. January 2003E (Bloggs, Durand + Dupont) or 12-14 February 2003E (Finland + France) or Reina 31012003E ), (2)   Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4) Subject: JCH or JGC .