003-3249594-3640183

655 14.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Poland, Romania and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Repetitive cases[2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Kuczera v. Poland (application no. 275/02) The applicant, Jerzy Kuczera, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Pleśna (Poland). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Kuczera complained about the excessive court fees required of him in order to proceed with a claim against his brother regarding a dispute over profits from crops and agricultural machines they co-owned. No violation of Article 6 § 1   Subicka v. Poland (no. 29342/06) The applicant, Iwona Subicka, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Gdańsk-Zaspa (Poland). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court) of the Convention, Ms Subicka complained that, in proceedings concerning the authorities’ refusal to grant her a monthly social assistance benefit, the lawyer appointed under the legal-aid scheme had refused to prepare a cassation appeal. Furthermore, she had been informed of that refusal only after expiry of the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Taylan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 9209/04, 40056/04 and 22412/05) These cases concerned three applications brought by 21 Turkish nationals with regard to the excessive length of domestic proceedings. The first application, brought by Vesim Taylan, concerned proceedings in which he had sought damages following termination of his contract with a Turkish company in Libya; the second application, brought by Abdullah Yücel and others, concerned compensation for expropriated property; and the third application concerned criminal proceedings brought against Hakkı Nazsız for alleged bribery and forgery. All the applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: - non-pecuniary damage: first case: EUR 6,100; second case: to each applicant EUR 2,000 and EUR 2,000 jointly, to the heirs of Naci Özkan ; and third case EUR 4,100 - costs and expenses: first and second cases EUR  1,000, third case EUR 2,000     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Chiş v. Romania (no. 3360/03) Flaviu and Dalia Şerban v. Romania (no. 36446/04) In these two cases the applicants complained of the authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in their favour. They all relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). (Both cases) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Akın Şahin v. Turkey (no. 9871/05) This case concerned denial of access to classified documents in proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court. The applicant relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Just satisfaction Bozak v. Turkey (no. 32697/02)* Temel Conta Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 45651/04)* These two cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the authorities had deprived them of their property without paying compensation. In judgments of 20 October 2009 and 10 March 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in both cases, and a further violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) in the case of Bozak; It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In its judgments today, the Court awarded EUR 1,300,000 to Mr Bozak and EUR 1,750,000 to the applicant company, in respect of pecuniary damage. The Court awarded a further EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses to the applicant company.     Length-of-proceedings case   Iskrzyccy v. Poland (no. 9261/02) In this case, 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. 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 [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   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.