CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 mai 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 } .s570D6F30 { width:40.79pt; display:inline-block } .s880F5553 { width:119.46pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s79B15227 { width:12.56pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sC6726222 { width:137.43pt; 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   252 19.5.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]     Lotter and Lotter v. Bulgaria (application no. 39015/97)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Alfred and Edith Lotter, are Austrian nationals, born respectively in 1956 and 1962. They are Jehovah’s Witnesses and at the relevant time were married.   The applicants complained that the refusal to renew their residence permits in Bulgaria and the order for them to leave the country based on an alleged threat to national security in December 1995 violated Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Hourmidis v. Greece (no. 12767/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Konstantinos Hourmidis, is a Greek national who was born in 1957 and lives in Athens.   The applicant was called up for military service in October 1979 and was admitted to hospital for a knee operation in February 1980. He left the army in March 1983. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained about the length of proceedings (15 years, four months and five days) concerning his pension rights.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It awarded the applicant 8,800 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Lalousi-Kotsovos v. Greece (no. 65430/01)         Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Ioanna Lalousi-Kotsovos, is a Greek national who was born in 1944 and lives in Athens.   Having resigned during the military dictatorship (1967-1974) because of her political beliefs, she had brought proceedings seeking recognition that she had been forced to resign. She complained about the length of those proceedings (more than 18 years), relying on Article 6 § 1 and Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 10,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Palaska v. Greece (no. 8694/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Reveka Palaska, is a Greek national who lives in Athens.   She complained about the length of the administrative proceedings (more than 14 years) she had brought to obtain a pension following her son’s death. She relied on Article 6 § 1 and Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Cıbır v. Turkey (no. 49659/99) Koçak and Others v. Turkey (no. 42432/98) Violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Cıbır v. Turkey The applicant, Adil Cıbır, is a Turkish national living in Ankara. He is the former owner of land in Mamak (Ankara) which was expropriated by the State in 1992.   Koçak and Others v. Turkey The applicants, Ismet Koçak and Hasan Koçak, are Turkish nationals, born in 1943 and 1939 respectively and living in Istanbul. They are the former owners of land in Istanbul 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 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   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.   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 Cıbır EUR   1,400 for pecuniary damage and EUR   300 for costs and expenses and Ismet and Hasan Koçak were awarded jointly EUR   1,000,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are only available in English.)     ***   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.