CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 22 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 } .s39A226A1 { width:11.96pt; display:inline-block } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; 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   032 22.1.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy 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]   Gianturco v. Italy (applications nos. 40672/98, 40680/98, 40681/98 and 40884/98)     Friendly settlement The applicants, Francesco and Giuseppe Gianturco, are Italian nationals who were born in 1927 and 1928 respectively and lived in Naples. Francesco Gianturco died in 2003 but the Court granted his heirs leave to pursue his application.   The applicants complained about their prolonged inability – through lack of police assistance   – to recover possession of their apartments and about 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) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive 16,340 euros (EUR) for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following six 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.   Güven and Others v. Turkey (no. 40528/98) The applicants, Ahmet Güven, Ramazan Akdağ and Kadri Sönmez, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1968, 1972 and 1964 respectively and were members of the PRK/Rıgari (Kurdistan Liberation Party/Rıgari). They hijacked a vehicle transporting money to a bank and were sentenced to death for undermining the territorial integrity of the State. İrfan Kaya v. Turkey (no. 44054/98) The applicant, İrfan Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959. At the time when he lodged his application, he lived in Celle (Germany). He was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for harbouring PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) militants and supplying them with equipment. Jalaliaghdam v. Turkey (no. 47340/99) The applicant, Sayed Samed Jalaliaghdam, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979. He was sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment for being a member of an illegal organisation, the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front). Kırcan v. Turkey (no. 48062/99) The applicant, Mustafa Kırcan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977. He was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for being a member of the THKP/C (Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front). Korkmaz v. Turkey (no. 50903/99) The applicant, Ferhat Korkmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974. He was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for being a member of an illegal organisation, the TKP/ML (Turkish Communist Party/Marxist-Leninist). Özertikoğlu v. Turkey (no. 48438/99) The applicant, İsmail Özertikoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963. He was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation, the DHKP/C, and to five years and six months’ imprisonment for throwing a Molotov cocktail inside a bank.   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 six 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 six cases that the judgments in themselves constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants. It reiterated 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 cases of İrfan Kaya v. Turkey , Jalaliaghdam v. Turkey , Kırcan v. Turkey and Korkmaz v. Turkey , the Court awarded the applicants EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, less the sums already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. In the case of Özertikoğlu v. Turkey , it awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 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.