CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 janvier 2004

.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 } .s6670E17E { width:83.43pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s79B15227 { width:12.56pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     007   8.1.2004   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 five Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Panek v. Poland (application no. 38663/97)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   The applicant, Janusz Panek, is a Polish national, born in 1965 and lives in Koszwaly.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him which lasted in total five years, two months and 13 days.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 2,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Güçlü and Others v. Turkey (no. 42670/98) İlkay v. Turkey (no. 42786/98)       Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Güçlü and Others v. Turkey The applicants, Mustafa Güçlü, Firdevs Helvacı and Ayşe Yazıcı, are Turkish nationals who live in Çorum. They were the owners of land which was expropriated by the Osmancık local authorities in 1991. The applicants applied to the national courts contesting the amount of compensation they had received. In July 1995 the Court of Cassation awarded them additional compensation, the final instalment of which was paid to them by the authorities in January 1998.   İlkay v. Turkey The applicant, Nuran İlkay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Ankara. She was the owner of land in Yenimahalle (Ankara) which was expropriated. She received compensation for the expropriation but disagreed with the amount awarded and applied to the Turkish courts. In December 1994 the Court of Cassation awarded her additional compensation, which was paid to her by the Directorate General for National Highways in January 1998, 37 months after the final court decision.   In the above two Turkish cases the applicants complained of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as a result of the authorities’ delay in paying them the additional compensation which the courts had awarded them for the expropriation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In addition, Mrs İlkay complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that she had not had an effective remedy by which to compel the State to pay her the compensation in good time.   The Court reiterated that an abnormally lengthy delay in the payment of compensation for expropriation led to increased financial loss for those whose property had been expropriated, putting them in a position of uncertainty, especially when the monetary depreciation in certain States was taken into account. In both cases, the delays in payment of the compensation had been attributable to the authorities and had caused the applicants to sustain separate loss in addition to the expropriation of their property. As a result of those delays, they had borne an individual and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance that should be maintained between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The Court accordingly held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further held that it was not necessary to examine separately Mrs İlkay ’s complaint under Article 13.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants in the case of Güçlü and Others jointly EUR 2,500 for pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 for costs and expenses. The Court considered that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mrs İlkay and awarded her EUR 1,900 EUR for pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 In the following two Turkish cases the applicants were tried by a national security court and given prison sentences for being members of, or having aided and abetted, illegal armed organisations. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, as a military judge had sat as a member of the national security court. They also complained that the proceedings that had resulted in their conviction had been unfair and that there had been various other violations of Article 6 of the Convention.   Becerikli and Altekin v. Turkey (no. 57562/00) The applicants, Sekvan Becerikli and Ahmet Altekin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1966 respectively. At the time when they lodged their application, Mr Becerikli was in Ordu Prison and Mr Altekin was in İzmir Prison. The applicants were arrested in 1994 on suspicion of carrying out activities within the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and were prosecuted. Mr Altekin was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and Mr Becerikli to life imprisonment.       Toprak v. Turkey (no. 57561/00) The applicant, Gürü Toprak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Siirt. He was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation.   The Court reiterated that that civilians standing trial for offences under the Criminal Code had legitimate reason to fear that a national security court which included a military judge among its members might not be independent and impartial. Accordingly, it held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court also reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not under any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to persons subject to its jurisdiction. It therefore held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held unanimously in both cases that the judgments in themselves constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants. It considered that in cases in which it had found that applicants had been convicted by a court that was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress would in principle be for them to be retried by an independent and impartial court at an early date. In the case of Becerikli and Altekin v. Turkey the Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, less the sum of EUR 630 already received in legal aid. It awarded Mr Toprak EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgments are 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 Press 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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.