CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 29 janvier 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s4C8F820 { width:83.41pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s8DD1D08A { vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC283D367 { width:121.46pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s2E722ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:16pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s927039E3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sFF596A0C { width:10.57pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   047 29.01.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Italy, Russia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]     Terzis v. Greece (application no. 64417/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Anastasios Terzis, is a Greek national who was born in 1937 and lives in Eginio Pierias (Greece). He was Chairman of the Board of Directors of two textile companies.   Suspected of being responsible for irregularities in the accounts of the two companies, he was prosecuted for misuse of company property and misappropriation, and appeared before the public prosecutor on 3 June 1991.   He was acquitted by the Athens Criminal Appeal Court on 23 June 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him (nine years and 20 days for two court levels).   The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant's case had not been heard within a "reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of that article and awarded the applicant 6,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 In the following two Italian cases, the applicants complained that they had been unable to recover possession of their apartments over an extended period, owing to a lack of police assistance. They also complained of the length of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Pecuniary damage Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Bellini v. Italy (no. 64258/01) - 3,000 4,500 Sorrentino Prota v. Italy (no.   40465/98) 6,000 3,000 7,800 The Court held unanimously in both these cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention. It awarded the applicants the amounts shown above, in euros, for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.   (These judgments are available only in English).     Friendly settlement In the following Italian case, the applicant complained that she had been unable to recover possession of her apartment over an extended period, owing to a lack of police assistance. She also complained of the length of the eviction proceedings. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Carnasciali v. Italy (no. 66754/01) This case has been struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive EUR 7,000 for the damage suffered and for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English).     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Kormacheva v. Russia (no. 53084/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Tatiana Akhunbekovna Kormacheva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Gus Khrustalnyi (Russia). She issued proceedings against a former employer for the recovery of sums due to her and to formalise her dismissal.   She complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the length of the proceedings, which lasted more than five years, and that, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she had no remedy in domestic law in respect of that complaint.   The Court held unanimously there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that there had also been a violation of Article 13, in that no remedy was available in Russia which would have enabled her to enforce her right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following three 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 trial), 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. In the cases Halil Doğan v. Turkey and Kalyoncugil and Others v. Turkey , the applicants 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.   Halil Doğan v. Turkey (no. 46503/99) The applicant, Halil Doğan, is a Turkish national and was born in 1981. He was being detained in Ankara Prison when the application was lodged. He was sentenced to 14 years, five months and ten days’ imprisonment for being a member of an armed organisation, the TIKB (the Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey). Kalyoncugil and Others v. Turkey (no. 57939/00) The applicants, Metin Murat Kalyoncugil, Ulaş Doğu Atlı and Ahmet Bahadır Ahıska are Turkish nationals, all of whom were born in 1970 and were living in Ankara at the material time. They were found guilty of being members of an illegal organisation, the Revolutionary Voice ( Devrimci Yol ), and of using explosive devices. They were sentenced to eight years and five days’ imprisonment. Tahir Duran v. Turkey (no. 40997/98) The applicant, Tahir Duran, is a Turkish national and was born in 1972. He was in Bursa Prison when the application was lodged, having been sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for being a member the TDKP (the Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey).   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 three cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   In the case of Halil Doğan v. Turkey the Court found that the other complaints concerning the unfairness of the procedure were inadmissible. In the case of Kalyoncugil and Others v. Turkey , it also noted that in no circumstances could a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established grant a fair trial to persons within its jurisdiction; accordingly it found that it was not necessary to consider these complaints.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held unanimously in all of these cases that the judgments constituted sufficient just satisfaction in themselves for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants.   It noted that where it finds that applicants were convicted by a court which was not independent or impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress would in principle be an early re-trial by an independent and impartial court. In the cases of Halil Doğan v. Turkey and Tahir Duran v. Turkey , the Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,500 each for costs and expenses. In the case of Kalyoncugil and Others v. Turkey it awarded the applicants jointly 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. [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.