CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 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 } .s394590EB { width:82.13pt; display:inline-block } .s2E0AB1BE { width:103.44pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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     020   15.1.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Greece and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1] (All seven are available only in French.)     Taveirne and Others v. Belgium (no. 41290/98)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Daniel Taveirne and Rosanne Vancauwenberghe, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1956 respectively and live in Wingene (Belgium).   They brought an action challenging the authorities’ refusal to grant them a licence to run a pig farm.   Relying on Article 6   § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the length of the administrative proceedings. They also maintained that they had not had a remedy by which to complain of the length of those proceedings, in violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive 10,000 euros (EUR) for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses.   Yagtzilar and Others v. Greece (no. 41727/98)   Just satisfaction The applicants, Fatma Ayten Yagtzilar, Mustafa Aykut Yagtzilar, Yakut Yagtzilar, Nermin Baykal, Bahadir Atik, Feriha Neriman Atik, Alan Hosman, Mukaddes Saraçoğlu, Rikkat Karaoğlu and Kenan Haciosmanoğlu, are Turkish nationals.   They owned an olive grove in Chalkidiki (northern Greece), which the State occupied in 1925 with a view to settling refugees from Asia Minor there. The land in question was expropriated in 1933 and compensation proceedings began in December 1933. The Greek courts repeatedly dismissed objections by the State that the applicants’ right to compensation had lapsed. However, on 17 July 1995 the Court of Appeal held that the applicants’ right to compensation had lapsed since at least 1971. The proceedings ended on 15 July 1997 when the Court of Cassation gave judgment upholding that ruling. The applicants were not awarded any compensation.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the European Court of Human Rights has today awarded the applicants jointly EUR 1,600,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 60,000 for costs and expenses.   In a judgment of 6 December 2001 the Court held that that the applicants had suffered a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to a court and that their case had not been heard within a reasonable time. It further held that that the lack of any compensation for the taking of the applicants’ possessions had upset the fair balance that should be struck between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and reserved the question of just satisfaction, which was not ready for decision.     Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following five 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.   Çınar v. Turkey (no. 48155/99) The applicant, Aydın Çınar, is a Turkish national born in 1976. In 1998 he was found guilty of aiding and abetting an offence against the public authorities and of assisting an illegal armed organisation, the TIKKO (Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army). He was sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. Erolan and Others v. Turkey (no. 56021/00) The applicants, Mehmet Hanefi Erolan, Ziya Yüce, Fevzi Üzüm and Idris Koluman, are Turkish nationals born in 1956, 1966, 1945 and 1965 respectively. Mr Erolan and Mr Yüce were each sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment and Mr Üzüm and Mr   Koluman each to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for being members of an illegal armed organisation. Hıdır Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 46952/99) The applicant, Hıdır Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in İzmir. He was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for assisting the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). Içöz v. Turkey (no. 54919/00) The applicant, Mustafa Içöz, is a Turkish national born in 1951. He was in Iskenderun Prison when he lodged his application. He was found guilty of assisting an illegal armed organisation, the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), and was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. Metin Polat and Others v. Turkey (no. 48065/99) The applicants, Metin Polat, Nuri Uğur, Mustafa Şala, Hüseyin Ferhat and Cihan Hasbay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969, 1974, 1973, 1971 and 1975 respectively. They were found guilty of being members of an illegal organisation, the TKP/ML (Turkish Communist Party/Marxist-Leninist),   and were each sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment, except for Mr Şala, who was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment.   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 all five 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 all five 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 each case the Court awarded the applicants EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, less – in the case of Metin Polat and Others v. Turkey – the sum of EUR 660 already received in legal aid.   ***   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.