CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 2 mars 2006

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC84A01E0 { width:48.78pt; display:inline-block } .sDE4E0BCF { width:121.44pt; display:inline-block } .s2FB03046 { width:129.46pt; display:inline-block } .s5F2C5AAE { width:132.81pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s11D2356A { width:220.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s206A5C31 { width:47.47pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s87E99523 { width:129.48pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCBB790AB { width:111.49pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE3829386 { width:218.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA15A98AE { width:66.15pt; display:inline-block } .s2AD7A6D2 { width:93.47pt; display:inline-block } .sFBCEDDCF { width:93.51pt; display:inline-block } .s1494F9C2 { width:44.8pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   116 2.3.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Italy, Russia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     M.A. v. Greece (application no 25559/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, M.A., is a Greek psychiatrist who was born in 1955 and lives in Athens.   In September 1997 she gave evidence in an administrative inquiry that had been opened at the request of the Ministry for Health into the issuing of false prescriptions. She was later charged with being an accomplice to fraud, with forgery and with uttering forged documents, but was acquitted in February 2003.   She complained under Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights of the length of the criminal proceedings.   The Court found that the proceedings had lasted for almost six years and eight months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that that period was excessive and did not comply with the “reasonable-time” requirement. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 7,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Satka and Others v. Greece (no. 55828/00)   Just satisfaction This case concerns an application by 89 Greek nationals who were either the owners or the heirs of the owners of land situated in Kalamaria that was part of a 330,000 square metre estate on which the Kodra barracks now stand following its requisition by the Greek Army in 1914.   The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that they had been deprived of the use of their land since 1914. They further complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within reasonable time) that the authorities had intervened in the proceedings by issuing administrative decisions classifying the land as public land. Lastly, they complained of the length of the procedure for obtaining compensation which, they said, had not been completed owing to delays on the part of the authorities.   In a judgment of 27 March 2003, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the special burden that had been imposed on the applicants as a result of the restrictions on the use of the land. It also found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the repeated interventions by the State authorities that had rendered the court decisions in favour of the applicants on the question of expropriation devoid of purpose. It reserved, however, the question of the application of Article 41, as it was not ready for decision.   In its judgment delivered today, the Court unanimously decided to award the applicants jointly the sum of EUR 4,500,000 for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pilla v. Italy (no. 64088/00)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 The applicant, Angelo Pilla, is an Italian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Benavente (Italy).   In June 1997 he was arrested so that he could serve two custodial sentences he had been given for drug possession and dishonouring cheques. In December 1997 the Naples Court of Appeal ruled that the period to be served under the two sentences was two years and four months. It dismissed an application for remission of sentence, holding that it was not possible to establish precisely which offences had been committed before the statutory time-limit entitling him to remission had expired.   However, on 14 December 1999, in line with a recent decision of the Court of Cassation, it granted the applicant the period of remission he had requested and to which he was entitled under Presidential Decree no 394 of 1990.   The applicant was released on 7 July 1998. As his initial prison sentence should have ended on 19 November 1998, with remission he would have been entitled to release on 14 February 1998.   The applicant alleged that his detention was unlawful as a result of the late remission of sentence. He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   In view of the fact that the remission of sentence should have resulted in the applicant’s release on 14 February 1998, the Court found that he had served four months and 23 days longer than that he should have done. The final court decision on his application for remission of sentence had been delivered late, that is to say after his release, by which time he had already served more than he should have done had he been granted the remission he had requested. That additional period of imprisonment did not constitute lawful detention within the meaning of the Convention. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   The Court further noted that the applicant had had no means available to him to make a claim in the Italian courts for compensation for unlawful detention. It therefore held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   By way of just satisfaction, it awarded him EUR 11,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dolgova v. Russia (no. 11886/05)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Valentina Andreyevna Dolgova, is a Russian national who was born in 1986 and lives in Moscow.   On 14 December 2004 the applicant was involved in a demonstration against President Putin. The protesters occupied the waiting area of the President’s Office in Moscow, chanted slogans and distributed leaflets critical of Mr Putin’s politics. After just over an hour the police broke into the office and the applicant, along with the other protesters was taken into custody. They did not resist arrest.   The next day Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant to be remanded in custody on the ground that she was suspected of a particularly serious criminal offence. She was subsequently charged with, among other things, the attempted violent overthrow of State power. The charge was later amended to that of participation in mass disorders.   Her detention on remand was extended several times on essentially the same grounds. In her appeals the applicant submitted, among other things, that she had no criminal record and that there was no danger of her absconding. She also produced a personal surety given by a member of the Russian Parliament. Her appeals were dismissed   On 8   December 2005 she was found guilty as charged and given a three-year suspended sentence.   The applicant complained, in particular, that that she had not been brought to trial within a reasonable time and that the detention orders had not been founded on sufficient reasons. She relied on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court accepted that the applicant’s detention on the grounds of reasonable suspicion could initially have been warranted since she was apprehended on the premises where the offences had allegedly taken place but could not be used indefinitely to justify her continued detention.   The Court found that the grounds on which the authorities prolonged the applicant’s detention were not “relevant and sufficient”. It found they had failed to address concrete facts which were put to them in the applicant’s defence and did not consider alternative “preventive measures” that were available to them under Russian law, preferring instead to rely essentially on the gravity of the charges. The authorities had therefore failed to justify the holding the applicant in detention on remand for almost a year. Furthermore, the trial court used the same summary formula to refuse petitions for release of 39 of her co-detainees without examining their individual circumstances. The Court found that approach incompatible with the guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 3.   The applicant’s complaint under Article 10 was rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Articles 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 Nakhmanovich v. Russia (no. 55669/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Lev Aleksandrovich Nakhmanovich, is a Kazakhstan national who was born in 1957 and lives in Jambul (Kazakhstan).   In 1992 the applicant was accused of defrauding the Russian Central Bank of the equivalent of 25,500,000 EUR using forged credit notes from the National Bank of Kazakhstan in conspiracy with Mr Smolenskiy, the director of a Russian commercial bank.   The applicant was detained in Switzerland and extradited to Russia in 1997. On 29 July 1998 the Prosecutor General authorised an extension of his detention until 8   March 1999.     On 4 March 1999 the applicant’s case was referred to Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow for trial. After that date and until the applicant’s release 11 months later the case file was shuttled between the prosecutor’s office and the court; however, the issue of the applicant’s continued detention was never considered by any authority.   On 4 February 2000 the Investigations Department of the Ministry of the Interior resumed investigations and the applicant was released.   According to the Government, the criminal proceedings were discontinued on 28 April 2000 and the investigator had informed the applicant and his representative of that fact. In June 2000 and January 2004 the applicant’s representatives asked for a copy of the decision but were told that it was not available.   The applicant complained about his detention pending trial and excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Articles 5 § 1 (c) (right to liberty and security), 5 § 3 (right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court observed that after the expiry of the detention period authorised by the prosecutor’s order of 29 July 1998 and until the district court’s decision of 20 January 2000 there was no decision authorising the applicant’s detention pending trial. For parts of that period the applicant was detained solely on the basis of the fact that a bill of indictment had been lodged against him. For some six months the unlawfulness of his detention was fully apparent to the Prosecutor General’s Office. The legal basis was so conspicuously lacking that the prosecutor, who had no apparent authority in detention matters, sent a non-procedural fax to the director of the remand centre where the applicant was detained, prohibiting his release.   Furthermore, the district court’s decision of 20 January 2000 which upheld the pre-trial detention measure did not give any reasons for its decision and did not set a time-limit or refer to the provisions of the law on which the decision was based. The Court considered that that decision did not afford the applicant the adequate protection from arbitrariness, an essential element of the lawfulness of detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 1.   The Court concluded that there was no “lawful” basis for the applicant’s detention during the period from 4 March 1999 until his release on 4 February 2000. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   The Court observed that the applicant’s detention pending trial lasted from 11 September 1997, the date on which he was detained in Switzerland, until 4 February 2000, the day of his release. During that entire period the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was based solely on the fact that he had been charged with a serious criminal offence, a ground which the Court had previously found to be irrelevant or insufficient in other cases. The Court considered that the authorities had failed to justify the applicant’s continued detention pending trial and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3   The Court noted that on 16 August 1999 the district court discontinued the proceedings on the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention on the ground that the criminal case against him had been submitted for trial. The Court found that the applicant had been denied the right to a judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of his detention and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court observed that the proceedings started in 1992. The Court was not satisfied that the decision discontinuing the criminal proceedings had been issued on 28 April 2000 or that it had been impossible to serve the decision. It therefore accepted 15 April 2004, the date when the Court’s letter enclosing the Government’s observations reached the applicant’s representative, as the date when the applicant’s legal position as regards the criminal charges was resolved. Hence, since Russia ratified the Convention on 5 May 1998, the period to be taken into account lasted five years and 11 months.   The Court noted a number of significant delays which were attributable to the conduct of the domestic authorities. The Court considered that the length of the proceedings did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement and accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 3 Devrim Turan v. Turkey (no. 879/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Devrim Turan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and is currently detained in Ankara Prison. She worked for a newspaper called Kurtuluş .   In May 1999 she was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front). Two hours after her arrest she was taken to hospital to be examined. A medical report indicated the presence of an abrasion under one eye but no signs of ill-treatment on her body.   Further medical examinations were carried out which also concluded that her body showed no signs of ill-treatment. The applicant refused to undergo gynaecological and rectal examinations and they were not carried out.   On 30 May 1999 before the Tokat public prosecutor, she denied the allegations against her and maintained that the police statement she made shortly after her arrest had been taken under duress. She stated that she had been hosed with cold water, subjected to electric shocks and Palestinian hanging. She repeated her allegations before the investigating judge at the Tokat Magistrate’s Court.   In June 1999, Ankara State Security Court Public Prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against her for being a member of an illegal organisation. She wrote to the court retracting her statement which she said was made under duress. She also described in more detail her ill-treatment in police custody.   In July 2000 she was found guilty as charged and sentenced to 12 years six months’ imprisonment. She appealed to the Court of Cassation referring in particular to her ill-treatment in custody. The appeal was rejected.   The applicant complained of her ill-treatment in police custody and the lack of effective remedy in domestic law. She relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The part of the applicant’s complaint relating to the gynaecological examinations was rejected as inadmissible.   The Court found that a number of elements in the case raised doubts as to whether the applicant had suffered ill-treatment while in police custody. In particular, no signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body were noted in the medical reports. Although some injuries to her face were noted, those details were taken on the first day of the applicant’s arrest whereas her allegations concerning ill-treatment concerned the time she spent in police custody. In conclusion, the evidence before the Court did not enable it to find beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation Article 3.   The Court noted that the applicant repeatedly complained about her ill-treatment to the national authorities. The Court referred in particular to her statements taken by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, her letter to the trial court where she retracted her statement made to the police and her appeal to the Court of Cassation. The authorities were therefore clearly aware of her allegations but took no steps to investigate. The Court therefore considered that the authorities failed to fulfil their obligation to provide the applicant with an effective remedy concerning her allegations of ill-treatment and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 2 Erikan Bulut v. Turkey (no. 51480/99)   No violation of Article 3 The applicant, Erikan Bulut, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.   On 26 August 1998 he was arrested in Istanbul by policemen from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Pendik Security Directorate on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK. A medical report taken the same day stated that there were no signs of injury on his body. The applicant was then taken to Pendik Police Station to be interrogated.   The next day he was handed over to the police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Pendik Security Directorate for release as charges against him had been dropped. The applicant alleged that while he was waiting to be released police officers made him drink drugged tea as a result of which he lost consciousness. When he regained his consciousness, he was in the hospital. He had fallen out the window of the office which was on the fifth floor of the Security Directorate Building. The Government maintained that he had jumped out the window. The applicant had several fractures and had to stay in hospital for three months before he recovered from his injuries.   The same day, the police officers prepared an incident report, drew a sketch map and took statements from eye-witnesses to the event. Several police officers and two civilians who happened to be in the office at the time of the incident, confirmed that the applicant had jumped out the window. The applicant also made a statement confessing that he had jumped out of the window and stated that he had no complaints against anyone.   In September 1998 the applicant’s representative filed a criminal complaint with the Pendik public prosecutor claiming that the applicant had been ill-treated and deliberately thrown out the window.   The prosecutor took statements from the police officers who had arrested him and those who had been on duty on the day of the incident. They denied the allegations. He also took statements from the applicant and his wife. The applicant stated that he had been insulted and threatened while he was in custody at the police station. However he indicated that he had not been subjected to any physical ill-treatment. He also stated that he did not remember whether he had jumped or had been thrown out the window.   On 23 October 1998 the Pendik public prosecutor decided that no prosecution should be brought against the accused police officers because of lack of evidence. The public prosecutor concluded that the applicant had tried to commit suicide. The applicant’s representative challenged that decision alleging that the applicant had been ill-treated, drugged and thrown out of the window. His case was dismissed.   The applicant complained, in particular, that his fall from the fifth floor of the Pendik Security Directorate Building constituted a violation of his right to life. He relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court concluded that in view of the conflicting versions of events given by the applicant, his lawyer and the eyewitnesses that there was insufficient factual and evidentiary basis on which to conclude that the applicant had been thrown out of the window by the police officers. Furthermore, it considered that the authorities had no reason to believe that the applicant was in danger of committing suicide held that it could not be inferred that the action of the police officers, in taking him to an office with no window guards, could give rise to a violation of the Convention. The authorities had also opened an investigation immediately after the incident and the Court found that that investigation had been effective. The Court therefore found unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2.   The Court found that there were a number of elements in the case which cast doubt on whether the applicant was ill-treated in police custody which included inconsistencies in the applicant’s and applicant’s representative’s accounts of the facts. In conclusion, since it was not able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant had been mistreated, the Court found unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3. (The judgment is available only in English.)   İzmir Savaş Karşitlari Derneği and Others v. Turkey (no. 46257/99) Violation of Article 11 The applicants are an association, İzmir Savaş Karşıtları Derneği (Izmir Association Against War), and Ayşe Tosuner, Ali Serdar Tekin and Osman Murat Ülke, Turkish nationals born in 1950, 1974 and 1970 respectively, who live in Izmir (Turkey).   In January 1994 various members of the applicant association travelled to Germany to attend meetings organised by an association of lawyers and Greenpeace. The president of the applicant association, Mr Murat Ülke, also travelled to Colombia and Brazil in November and December 1994 to attend other meetings.   On 5 June 1996 certain members of the association were sentenced by İzmir Criminal Court under section 43 of Law no. 2908 to three months’ imprisonment as they had not sought permission to leave the country from the Ministry of the Interior. That judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on the ground that the Criminal Court had failed to commute the prison sentences into fines. The case was remitted to the Criminal Court, which complied with the Court of Cassation’s judgment on 14 July 1997.   The applicants complained that their right to freedom of association and to peaceful assembly had been infringed by their criminal convictions for allowing members of the association to travel overseas without requesting prior permission from the authorities. They relied on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association)   The issue before the Court was whether the interference with the applicants’ freedom of association could be considered to have been “necessary in a democratic society”. It reiterated that in a democratic society based on the rule of law, political ideas which challenged the existing order and whose realisation was advocated by peaceful means had to be afforded a proper opportunity of expression through the exercise of the right of assembly as well as by other lawful means. In view of the role played by associations, any measure taken against them affected both freedom of association and, consequently, democracy in the State concerned.   The Court reiterated that the State could not, in the name of protecting “national security” or “public safety”, take just any measure it happened to deem appropriate. It further noted that no member State of the Council of Europe possessed legislation similar to section 43 of the Turkish law on associations, which was repealed in 2004.   Accordingly, the Court found that the permission the applicants had been required to obtain in the case before it could not be regarded as pursuing a legitimate aim, namely the protection of national security or public safety. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 and awarded Mr Murat Ülke and Mr Ali Serdar Tekin EUR 1,500 each for pecuniary damage and the applicants EUR 4,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment)   Violation of Article 13   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Murat Demir v. Turkey (no.42579/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Murat Demir is a Turkish National who was born in 1965. He currently lives in Düsseldorf (Germany), where he has been granted political asylum.   At the material time he was a lawyer practising in Istanbul. He was arrested and taken into police custody on 13 June 1991 in connection with an investigation into the murder of a general. He was suspected of implication in the killing, which was allegedly carried out on behalf of an illegal armed organisation Devrimci Sol (“The Revolutionary Left”).   On 27 June 1991 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who found various marks and lesions on his body including a scratch inside the upper lip, three circular purple-coloured ecchymoses measuring 0,3 x 3 cm and 0,3 x 4 cm on the penis, an ecchymosis on the right side of the abdomen and scratches on the right hand and both feet. The following day the applicant was brought before a judge, who ordered his detention pending trial. He was prosecuted for having taken on a special mission on behalf of Devrimci Sol , an organisation which sought to undermine the Turkish constitutional regime.   The chairman of the Istanbul Bar and members of the Human-Rights Committee of the Grand National Assembly visited the applicant both while he was in police custody and afterwards and found that he had been ill-treated.   The applicant was released on bail on 17 January 1992. However, following a search of his office, was rearrested on 27 September 1994 and taken into police custody. When his period in police custody ended on 10 October 1994, he was examined by a doctor who found no traces of lesions on his body.   The applicant was released on 4 May 1995. On 7 December 1995 Ankara State Security Court found him guilty of belonging to an armed organisation. It sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment and issued a warrant of committal the same day. It did not rule on the allegations that the applicant’s deposition had been taken under duress while he was in police custody. The Court of Cassation upheld his conviction on 25   December 1996.   In the interim, on 11 October 1996, the applicant fled to Germany where he obtained political asylum.   He complained under Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13   (right to an effective remedy) of ill-treatment in police custody and of the lack of a remedy to air his complaints. He also complained under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of procedural unfairness and of the length of the proceedings.   With regard to the allegations of ill-treatment in police custody in June 1991, the Court noted that, after 15 days’ detention without access to a lawyer, the applicant was given a medical examination. The lesions found on his body by the forensic doctor corroborated the statements that had been made by the Chairman of the Bar and the members of the Human-Rights Committee of the Grand National Assembly. In those circumstances, and in the absence of a plausible explanation from the Turkish Government, the Court found that it had been established that the marks on the applicant’s body had been caused by treatment that engaged Turkey’s responsibility. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on that account.   As to the allegations relating to the period in police custody in October 1994, the material before the Court did not enable it to establish that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 on that account.   The Court further noted that, despite the applicant’s complaints and the witnesses’ statements, the authorities had not launched any inquiry. The Court consequently held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13, taken together with Article 3, in respect of the applicant’s complaints regarding his treatment in police custody in June 1991.   Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 owing to de lack of independence or impartiality of the State Security Court and the length of the proceedings, which had taken approximately five and half years for two levels of jurisdiction.   It awarded the applicant EUR 17,500 for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment is available only in French.)   Yalçın Küçük v. Turkey (No. 2) (no.56004/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Yalçın Küçük, is a Turkish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Ankara.   On 22 March 1999 Ankara State Security Court found him guilty of separatist propaganda and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for a speech he had made at a round-table discussion in 1993. The Court of Cassation upheld his conviction.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of procedural unfairness. He also alleged that his conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10.   The case was struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicant was to receive EUR 6,450. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive Cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Izzo v. Italy (no. 20935/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Filomena Izzo is an Italian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Paupisi (Italy).   She owned land that was occupied by the authorities with a view to expropriation and on which they commenced building works. She issued proceedings for damages for unlawful occupation of the land after the authorities failed to issue a formal expropriation order or to pay her compensation.   In her application to the Court, she alleged that the occupation of her land had infringed her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found that the fact that she no longer had any possibility of using the land, coupled with her inability to remedy that situation, amounted to constructive expropriation that was incompatible with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1. It held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and accordingly reserved it. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Nikolayev v. Russia (no. 37927/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Petr Ivanovich Nikolayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Tambov (Russia).   He complained about the lengthy failure to enforce various judgments in his favour to recover unpaid social benefit, in breach of Article   6 §   1 (access to court) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for years, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   4,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Adem Bulut and Others v. Turkey (no. 50282/99) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   The 60 applicants, who had been summoned to appear before Ankara State Security Court, were convicted for disrupting the hearing.   They complained under Article 6 that they had been denied a fair trial on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court. With regard to a further complaint of procedural unfairness, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality has been established could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction. Accordingly, it was unnecessary to examine the additional complaint.   As the applicants had not made any request for just satisfaction, the Court made no award. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Pastellis v. Cyprus (no. 19106/03) The Court awarded EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   ***   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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights.