CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 juin 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sBE409FD4 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:1.5pt double #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s9D1206FC { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB233BF08 { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .sB36CC863 { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .sE43E035D { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .s5BF1BAA7 { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .s44CCECA1 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .sC48DBBF9 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; background-color:#ffffff } .s374119C8 { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; background-color:#ffffff } .sC6AA1C4B { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; background-color:#ffffff } .s3876D412 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .s2655D88E { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } .sB2C31DB { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt } Resolution ResDH(2004)36 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 25 September 2001, 30 October 2001, 7 February 2002 and 7 May 2002 (final respectively on 25 December 2001, 30 January 2002, 7 May 2002 and 7 August 2002) in the 19 cases against Turkey (see Appendix) concerning the length of certain criminal proceedings   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 June 2004 at the 885th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the 19 cases details of which appear in the appendix to this resolution, delivered on 25 September 2001, 30 October 2001, 7   February   2002 and 7 May 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the cases originated in applications against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights between 27 October 1994 and 18 August 1997 under former Article 25 of the Convention by 22 Turkish nationals, and that the Court, seised of the cases under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints that the length of certain criminal proceedings was excessive;   Whereas in its judgments of 25 September 2001, 30 October 2001, 7 February 2002 and 7 May 2002 concerning these cases the Court unanimously:   -   held, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings;   -   held, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months from the date at which the judgments became final, the amounts of just satisfaction (set out in the appendix to this resolution) awarded in French Francs (to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of settlement), and that simple interest at an annual rate of 4,26% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments of 25 September 2001, 30 October 2001, 7 February 2002 and 7 May 2002, having regard to Turkey’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it; Whereas during the examination of the cases by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that the internal proceedings are closed and that measures had already been taken to avoid new similar violations, in particular through the entry into force of Law No. 3953 of 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts (see Resolution DH(1998)82 in the case of Mitap and Müftüoğlu against Turkey), and indicated that the Court’s judgments had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Having satisfied itself that on the dates mentioned in the appendix, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgments of 25 September 2001, 30 October 2001, 7 February 2002 and 7 May 2002,   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Turkey, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2004)36   Details of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants     Case Date of judgment Application No. Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Date of payment Adiyaman 30/10/2001 31880/96 100 000 French Francs 8 000 French Francs 16/04/2002 Akçam 30/10/2001 32964/96 100 000 French Francs 10 000 French Francs 25/04/2002 Akyazi 30/10/2001 33362/96 100 000 French Francs 10 000 French Francs 25/04/2002 Başpinar 30/10/2001 29280/95 100 000 French Francs 10 000 French Francs 16/04/2002 Binbir 07/02/2002 29913/96 15 250 Euros 1 200 Euros 09/07/2002 Bürkev 30/10/2001 26480/95 100 000 French Francs 8 000 French Francs 16/04/2002 Çilengir 07/02/2002 29912/96 15 250 Euros 1 200 Euros 09/07/2002 Dede & others 07/05/2002 32981/96 15 250 Euros 1 200 Euros 05/08/2002 Dinleten 07/02/2002 29699/96 15 250 Euros 1 200 Euros 09/07/2002 Genç 30/10/2001 31891/96 100 000 French Francs 8 000 French Francs 16/04/2002 Hasan Yağiz 30/10/2001 31834/96 70 000 French Francs   16/04/2002 Inan 30/10/2001 39428/98 100 000 French Francs 8 000 French Francs 05/03/2002 Kanbur 30/10/2001 28291/95 100 000 French Francs 8 000 French Francs 16/04/2002 Karademir 30/10/2001 32990/96 100 000 French Francs   25/04/2002 Keskin 30/10/2001 32987/96 100 000 French Francs 10 000 French Francs 25/04/2002 Pekdaş 30/10/2001 31960/96 100 000 French Francs 10 000 French Francs 16/04/2002 Şahin 25/09/2001 31961/96 100 000 French Francs   22/03/2002 Saritaç 07/02/2002 29702/96 15 250 Euros 1 200 Euros 15/07/2002 Uygur 07/02/2002 29911/96 15 250 Euros 1 200 Euros 10/07/2002