003-7824942-10861945

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 347 (2023)   12.12.2023   Judgments of 12 December 2023   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 12 judgments1:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for four other Chamber judgments in the cases of Vučković   v. Croatia (application no. 15798/20), Jasuitis and Šimaitis v. Lithuania (nos. 28186/19 and   29092/19), Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland (no. 11454/17 and 9 other applications), and   Ștefan-Gabriel Mocanu and Others v. Romania (no. 34323/21 and 8 other applications).   Five Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can   be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Naskov and Others v. North Macedonia (application nos. 31620/15, 34859/15,   and 14659/16)   The applicants are 10 Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia, who were born   between 1937 and 1952 and live in Skopje.   Agricultural land in two plots belonging to the applicants’ legal predecessors was expropriated in the   1950s. In 2001 the national courts declared the applicants to be the successors to ownership of this   land. The case concerns their attempts to gain restitution of the land, which continued to be used by   companies and on which a petrol station and business premises were built, frustrating the   applicants’ attempts to take possession.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants   complain of the quashing of a final restitution order in their favour.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: the Court held that the question of pecuniary damage was not ready for decision   and set it aside;   non-pecuniary damage: 3,000 euros (EUR) to each applicant   costs and expenses: EUR 285 to the applicants jointly   Deliktaş v. Türkiye (no. 25852/18)   The applicant, Yunus Deliktaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in Malatya   (Türkiye).   The case concerns the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in particular the proceedings   before the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal. He was convicted of bribery-related offences, which   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a   panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and   deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the   Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   occurred while working as a forest-protection officer, at first instance following an in-person   hearing, but his appeal was tried in written proceedings. This is the first case where the Court has   been called upon to assess the requirement to hold a public hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the   Convention in the context of appellate reviews carried out by the regional courts of appeal in   Türkiye, which became operational as in July 2016.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, Mr Deliktaş complains of   the failure of the appellate court in his case to hold a hearing despite his having requested it.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: The Court decided that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just   satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant   Halit Kara v. Türkiye (no. 60846/19)   The applicant, Halit Kara, is a Turkish national who was born in 1987 and lives in Mersin (Türkiye).   At time of the events in question, Mr Kara was detained in a prison in Şanlıurfa for membership of an   armed terrorist organisation. The case concerns the refusal of the prison authorities to send a letter   from him to his brother. The reason for the refusal was that the letter allegedly contained false and   slanderous statements about public officials.   Mr Kara relies mainly on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the Convention.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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.   2