CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 avril 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1342027E { width:15.32pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4276A2C4 { width:31.2pt; display:inline-block } .s8181C36F { width:0.57pt; display:inline-block } .s79B15227 { width:12.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA95D1C5F { width:19.23pt; display:inline-block } .s88D5A2E2 { width:6.57pt; display:inline-block } .s8CD1BA8C { width:6.58pt; display:inline-block } .sCBCBF091 { width:21.9pt; display:inline-block } .sAEAEB0D0 { width:15.24pt; display:inline-block } .sC74F138C { width:10.55pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD62A0CC7 { width:15.9pt; display:inline-block } .s35008A5F { width:18.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF9D404D6 { width:17.24pt; display:inline-block } .sE375EF76 { width:25.22pt; display:inline-block } .s78255940 { width:8.55pt; display:inline-block } .s3ACE120C { width:30.54pt; display:inline-block } .sE950BED4 { width:22.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9BF8913 { width:5.2pt; display:inline-block } .sFDD53DB9 { width:17.21pt; display:inline-block } .sDE2D19A5 { width:13.85pt; display:inline-block } .s334CAB5A { width:32.52pt; display:inline-block } .s9344B0A { width:7.86pt; display:inline-block } .s6D0AE0DF { width:18.57pt; display:inline-block } .sE011E471 { width:5.88pt; display:inline-block } .s7ECE5F83 { width:35.25pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sDC16AC95 { width:3.23pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   265   10.4.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Turkey, Portugal, Belgium and France   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 28 Chamber judgments (only the friendly settlements and the Article 41 (just satisfaction) judgment in the case Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and others v. Portugal are final [1] ):   Section 1                                    Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 In the following 25 Turkish cases, the applicants complained in relation to delays in the payment of compensation due to them following the expropriation of their property. They alleged that the compensation they received did not reflect the real increase in inflation during the period between the date the amount was fixed and the date of payment.   In each case (the judgments are available only in French) the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded each applicant 1,000 American dollars (USD) for non-pecuniary damage (except in the case Mehmet Taşdemir   v. Turkey ) together with a total of   USD 300 in each case for costs and expenses.   The following amounts were awarded for pecuniary damage:   (1)     Günal v. Turkey (application no. 19282/92)           USD 4,521 (2)     Ali Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19289/92)             USD 923 (3)     Hasan Öztürk   v. Turkey (no. 19290/92)           USD 2,677 (4)     Kamil Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19291/92)             USD 5,069 (5)     Mehmet Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19292/92)           USD 4,072 (6)     Muhsin Öztürk   v. Turkey (no. 19293/92)           USD 3,391 (7)     Mustafa Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19294/92)           USD 1,329 (8)     Sabri Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19295/92)             USD 235 (9)     Yunus Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 19296/92)             USD 2,851 (10)     Sancar v. Turkey (no. 19297/92)             USD 3,199 (11)     Sari v. Turkey 19298/92)               USD 3,727 (12)     Sezer v. Turkey (no. 19299/92)               USD 4,188 (13)     Sülün v. Turkey (no. 19300/92)             USD 5,352 (14)     Şahin and others v. Turkey (no. 19301/92)           USD 4,247 (15)     Aziz Şen and others v. Turkey (no. 19302/92)           USD 4,799 (16)     Celal and Keziban Şen v. Turkey (no. 19303/92)         USD 6,981 (17)     Ibrahim Taşdemir v. Turkey (no. 19304/92)           USD 2,033 (18)     Mahir Taşdemir and others v. Turkey (no. 19305/92)         USD 4,799 (19)     Mehmet Taşdemir   v. Turkey (no. 19306/92)           USD 1,190 (20)     Zekeriya Taşdemir   v. Turkey (no. 19307/92)           USD 2,780 (21)     Zekeriya Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 19308/92)           USD 913 (22)     Zekiye Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 19309/92)           USD 3,422 (23)     Hamit Yilmaz   v. Turkey (no. 19310/92)           USD 575 (24)     Yüksel v. Turkey (no. 19311/92) USD 5,257 (25)     Zengin and others v. Turkey (no. 19312/92)           USD 1,490     (26)     Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and others v. Portugal (29813/96 and 30229/96)                  Just satisfaction   The applicants, all Portuguese nationals, are: Alexandre de Almeida Garrett, José Mascarenhas Falcão, Francisco Augusto Mascarenhas Falcão, Maria Teresa Mascarenhas de Oliveira Falcão de Azevedo, Maria José Mascarenhas Falcão Themudo de Castro and Leone Marie Irion Falcão. They were born in 1926, 1932, 1939, 1919, 1935 and 1930 respectively. The first four applicants live in Lisbon and the last two in Constância (Portugal).   They were all owners of land which had been expropriated and made national property as part of the agrarian reform implemented in Portugal after the 1974 revolution. In accordance with the legislation applicable to agrarian reform, they received provisional compensation in the form of Government bonds, but the amount of their final compensation has not yet been decided.   The European Court of Human Rights decided, unanimously, to award Mr Almeida Garrett   60,000,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) for pecuniary damage and, for non-pecuniary damage, PTE 3,0000,000 to Mr Almeida Garrett and PTE 1,000,000 to each member of the Mascarenhas Falcão family [2] . (The judgment exists only in French.)     Section 3   (27)     Sablon v. Belgium (no. 36445/97)         No violation Article 6 § 1 Emile Sablon, a Belgian national, complained of the length of several sets of civil proceedings to which he was a party concerning his being declared bankrupt.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was   not competent to rule on the applicants other complaints. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (28)     Chahed v. France (no. 45976/99)                   Friendly settlement Wardi Chahed, a French national, complained, under Article 6 § 1, of the length of administrative proceedings to which he was a party (which lasted six years, two months and four days). The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which he is to be paid 45,850 French francs. (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) 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.   [2] In its principal judgment of 11 January 2000, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that it was not necessary to examine the applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights). The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In respect of costs and expenses, the Court awarded Mr Almeida Garrett PTE 3,500,000 and the Mascarenhas Falcão family PTE 2,000,000.