CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 29 avril 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 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s489A6C5B { width:90.76pt; display:inline-block } .s1CDC23B7 { width:231.58pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   217 29.04.2004   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, none of which are final. [1]     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Plaksin v. Russia (application no. 14949/02)   Violation of Article 13 Aleksandr Plaksin, a Russian national, born in 1965 and living in Pyatigorsk (Russia), complained about the length of the civil proceedings he brought after a fire in his flat left his daughter severely injured and his family’s possessions destroyed. The proceedings which have lasted more than five years and six months are still pending. The applicant further maintained that there was no court in Russia to which he could have applied to complain about the excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Articles 6 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 2,400 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Dönmez v. Turkey (no. 48990/99) Mehmet Salih and Abdülsamet Çakmak v. Turkey (no. 45630/99)   Dönmez The applicant, Ali Dönmez, is a Turkish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Izmir. He is the former owner of land in Balçova (Izmir) which was expropriated by the State in 1993. Mehmet Salih and Abdülsamet Çakmak The applicants, Mehmet Salih and Abdülsamet Çakmak, are Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır. They are the former owners of land in the village of Kurudere (Diyarbakır) which was expropriated by the State in 1993.   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 delay by the authorities in paying them the additional compensation which had been awarded them by the courts. They relied on Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Mehmet Salih and Abdülsamet Çakmak, the applicants also relied upon Articles 8 (right to respect for family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the delay in paying additional compensation was in both cases attributable to the authorities and had caused the applicants to sustain a separate loss in addition to the loss deriving from the expropriation of their possessions. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that in both cases there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints raised in the case of Mehmet Salih and Abdülsamet Çakmak.   The Court held that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. It awarded Mr Dönmez EUR   26,800 for pecuniary damage and in the case of Mehmet Salih and Abdülsamet Çakmak, awarded the applicants jointly EUR   1,250 for pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment Dönmez is available only in English and the judgment Mehmet Salih and Abdülsamet Çakmak 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.