CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 novembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sFE576133 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8CD1BA8C { width:6.58pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s6D30ECC4 { width:7.9pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     798   6.11.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Turkey and Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments (of which the friendly settlements are final [1] ):   SECTION 1   Friendly settlement (1)     İ.İ., A.Ş., B.E. and A.Ö. v. Turkey (application nos. 30953/96, 30954/96, 30955/96 and 30956/96) The applicants, all Turkish nationals, who were living in the village of Kırkağaç with their families, complain on behalf of their relatives who, they allege, disappeared while in police custody.     In 1994, all the inhabitants of Kırkağaç were evacuated on the instructions of the security forces and moved to Fındıklı. On 13 August 1994 a police operation was carried out in Fındıklı; the police searched all the houses in the village but found nothing. The applicants’ relatives were taken from their houses and flown by helicopter to an unknown place.   The applicants complain, relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 5 (right to liberty and security), of the European Convention on Human Rights that, following the police operation, their relatives have not been seen or heard of since. The European Court of Human Rights has struck out the case after a friendly settlement was agreed, including the following declaration from the Turkish Government: “The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present applications, in particular the disappearance of the applicants’ close relatives and the anguish caused to their family. “It is accepted that the unrecorded deprivation of liberty and insufficient investigations into the allegations of disappearance constituted violations of Articles 2, 5 and 13 [right to an effective remedy] of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures with a view to ensuring that all deprivations of liberty are fully and accurately recorded by the authorities and that effective investigations into alleged disappearances are carried out in accordance with their obligations under the Convention.   The applicants have been awarded, on an ex gratia basis, the global sum of 34,000 pounds sterling. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     A.   V. v. Italy (no. 44390/98)                Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, an Italian national, complained about the length of civil proceedings to which he was a party, which lasted more than nine years and ten months in total.   The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1   (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the Convention and awarded the applicant 3,000,000 Italian lire for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 1,000,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Fermi and others v. Italy (no. 44401/98)                Friendly settlement The applicants, four Italian nationals, complained about the length of civil proceedings concerning their right to receive a pension following the death of a close relative, relying on Article 6 § 1.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which ITL 17,000,000 is to be paid to each applicant for any damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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 Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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.