003-2856690-3147546

678 22.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Finland, Italy, Romania, Serbia and Turkey   Strasbourg, 22.09.2009 - The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 47 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Repetitive cases[2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Knaster v. Finland (application no. 7790/05) The applicant, Riitta Knaster, is a Finnish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Helsinki. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, she complained about the length of criminal proceedings against her for aggravated embezzlement. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: 1,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Cimolino v. Italy (no. 12532/05)* The applicant, Gian Paolo Cimolino, is an Italian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Milan (Italy). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, he complained that proceedings before the Court of Cassation were not adversarial, in a dispute concerning his fees as a legal adviser to the public authorities. No violation of Article 6 § 1   Bican v. Romania (no. 37338/02)* The applicant, Gheorghe Bican, is a Romanian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Tulcea (Romania). Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained about the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning his status as an adopted child, which, he alleged, caused him psychological suffering and financial loss. No violation of Article 6 § 1     Just satisfaction S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa v. Romania (no. 1477/02)* The applicant company, S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa, is a commercial company that was formed in 1991 when a former State enterprise was turned into a joint-stock company. Its registered office is in Constanţa (Romania) and its main activity is providing pilot services to shipping. By a judgment of 3 June 2008, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the failure to execute final decisions authorising the company to exercise its piloting activities. (The question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction was not ready for decision). Just satisfaction: EUR 400,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,500 (costs and expenses)   Ahmet Arslan v. Turkey (no. 24739/04)* Çelebi and Others v. Turkey (no. 2910/04)* Halil Kaya v. Turkey (22922/03) The applicants, Ahmet Arslan, Mehmet Ali Çelebi, Abdurrahim Şen, Cevdet Sinan Özdemir et Halil Kaya, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979, 1956, 1971, 1974 and 1983 respectively and live in Turkey. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial) they complained of the lack of legal assistance during their detention in police custody. Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000, each, to Ahmet Arslan, Mehmet Ali Çelebi, Abdurrahim Şen, Cevdet Sinan Özdemir, and EUR 1,500 to Halil Kaya (non-pecuniary damage); and EUR 1,000 to Ahmet Arslan and EUR 200 to Halil Kaya (costs and expenses)   Akdüz and Others v. Turkey (no. 6982/04)* The applicants, Zeliha Akdüz, Sultan Kale and Murat Hızarcı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1938, 1930 and 1937 respectively. Their land was expropriated in 2001 to allow for the construction of a dam. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained that the authorities had failed to pay a debt that had been established by judicial decision, and of the inadequate rate of interest applied to that debt. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 31,500, jointly to the applicants (pecuniary damage), EUR 1,000, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000, jointly (costs and expenses)   Just satisfaction Baş v. Turkey (no. 49548/99)* The applicant, Sefine Baş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Giresun (Turkey). By a judgment of 24 June 2008, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) on account of the refusal to pay a widow’s pension and the length of the proceedings brought by Mrs Baş in order to have that right recognised. (The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision with regard to the pecuniary damage). Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (pecuniary damage)   Çetiner and Yücetürk v. Turkey (no. 24620/04)* The applicants, Sabahat Çetiner, Rukiye Yücetürk, Metin Yücetürk and Mehmet Yücetürk, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1959, 1941, 1964 and 1961 respectively and live in Sapanca (Turkey). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained about the decision to designate their land as public forest without compensation. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: claim rejected   Göksel Tütün Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 32600/03)* The applicant, Göksel Tütün Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş., is a limited company incorporated under Turkish law and has its registered office at İzmir. Relying on Article 1of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), it complained that it was deprived of part of its land, without compensation, under an urban-planning law on contributions to the cost of urban development. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), it also complained about the length of the proceedings before the Turkish courts. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Kapçak v. Turkey (no. 22190/05)* The applicant, Felemez Kapçak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). Relying, in particular, on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence), he alleged that his correspondence was intercepted by prison staff. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction, EUR 2,300 (costs and expenses)    Singar v. Turkey (no. 13467/05) The applicant, Mahmut Singar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Ağrı (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for membership of an illegal organisation. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Talay v. Turkey (no. 34806/03)* The applicant, Turan Talay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). Relying, in particular, on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he complained that he was kept in detention in spite of a decision ordering a stay of execution of a sentence imposed by the State Security Court. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Ünay v. Turkey (no. 24801/05) The applicant, Selim Ünay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and is currently remanded in custody in Kandıra (Turkey) on charges of membership of an illegal armed organisation. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Uyanık and Kabadayı v. Turkey (no. 7945/05) The applicants, Özgür Uyanık and Ozan Kabadayı, are Turkish nationals who were detained on remand in Kartal Prison (Turkey) on charges of membership of an illegal armed organisation when lodging their application before the Court in 2005; they have since been released. Relying on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained about the excessive length of their detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against them. (1st applicant) Violation of Article 5 § 3 (1st applicant) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: no claim made within time-limit     PROPERTY ISSUES FOLLOWING 1974 CONFLICT IN NORTHERN CYPRUS   All 18 of these cases concerned the applicants’ allegations that the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus deprived them of their home and properties. They all relied in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and most also on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). In four of the cases (Andreou Papi, Christodoulidou, Strati and Vrahimi) the applicants further complained that they were subjected to ill-treatment during an anti-Turkish demonstration, in breach in particular of Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Andreou Papi v. Turkey (no. 16094/90) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Christodoulidou v. Turkey (no. 16085/90) Violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) for the Article 3 violation; question reserved for decision at a later date in respect of the Article 1 of Protocol 1 violation   Diogenous and Tseriotis v. Turkey (no. 16259/90) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Epiphaniou and Others v. Turkey (no. 19900/92) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Hadjiprocopiou and Others v. Turkey (no. 37395/97) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Hadjithomas and Others v. Turkey (no. 39970/98) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Hapeshis and Hapeshi-Michaelidou v. Turkey (no. 35214/97) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Hapeshis and Others v. Turkey (no. 38179/97) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Iordanis Iordanou v. Turkey (no. 43685/98) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Josephides v. Turkey (no. 21887/93) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Loizou and Others v. Turkey (no. 16682/90) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Ramon v. Turkey (no. 29092/95) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Roch Ruby Hotels Ltd v. Turkey (no. 46159/99) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Saveriades v. Turkey (no. 16160/90) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Strati v. Turkey (no. 16082/90) Violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) for the Article 3 violation; question reserved for decision at a later date in respect of the other two violations   Skyropiia Yialias Ltd v. Turkey (no. 47884/99) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Vrahimi v. Turkey (no. 16078/90) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Zavou and Others v. Turkey (no. 16654/90) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   S.C. Concordia Internaţional S.R.L. Constanţa v. Romania (no. 38969/02)* Simionescu-Râmniceanu v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 43953/02)* These cases concerned actions for the recovery of property. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) Just satisfaction: S.C. Concordia Internaţional S.R.L. Constanţa: EUR 250,000 (pecuniary damage). Simionescu-Râmniceanu: restitution within 3 months of the apartment or, failing that, payment of EUR 290,000 (pecuniary damage); in any case, EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,160 (costs and expenses)   Aldemir v. Turkey (no. 37215/04) The applicant complained that he was issued with a penal order without a public hearing being held in his case. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses). Finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction (non-pecuniary damage)   Ali Taş v. Turkey (no. 10250/02)* The applicant complained that he was deprived of his property, designated as forest area, without compensation. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) Just satisfaction: EUR 30,000 (pecuniary damage)   Hasan Polat v. Turkey (no. 32489/03)* The applicant complained of the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court in the context of the criminal proceedings brought against him for membership of an illegal organisation, and about the length of those proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicants in the cases of Oy Hopotihoi Suomen Lelukamarit Toy & Hobby Ltd and Matti Kangasluoma and M.V. also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Oy Hopotihoi Suomen Lelukamarit Toy & Hobby Ltd and Matti Kangasluoma v. Finland (no. 38158/07) M.V. v. Serbia (no. 45251/07) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13   Balea v. Romania (no. 31253/03)* Lǎzǎrescu v. Romania (no. 3912/03)* Barker v. Turkey (no. 34656/03) Saruhan and Çelik v. Turkey (no. 5298/06) Seval Tekstil Sanayi ve Mümessillik Dış Ticaret Ltd. Şti. v. Turkey (no. 8476/05) Sürgit v. Turkey (no. 27597/06) Violation of Article 6 § 1     ***   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).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.   [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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.