- Judgment date: 2009-07-07
- Communication date: 2015-01-19
- Application number(s): 22730/12
- Country: AZE
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 13, P1-1
Violation of Art. 5-3
Violation of Art. 5-4
Violation of Art. 6-1
Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed
Non-pecuniary damage - award
- Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
- Probability: 0.563048
- Prediction: Violation
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Eldar Huseynov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Sumgayit.
He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Ağayev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Demolition of the applicant’s flat In April 2007 the applicant purchased a one-room flat with a total area of 28 sq.
m. at 28 Fizuli Street in Baku for 130,350 Azerbaijani new manats (AZN).
On 12 May 2008 the flat was registered in the applicant’s ownership by the State Register of Immovable Property.
In the beginning of 2010 officials of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) contacted the residents of a number of residential buildings in the area where the applicant’s flat was located, notifying them that the properties in the area in question were to be expropriated for State needs and demolished with the purpose of building an urban park.
The expropriation was conducted on the basis of the BCEA order no.
511 of 24 September 2008 (not available in the case file).
The order also authorised conclusion of a contract with a private individual, R.K., giving him authority to negotiate, on behalf of the BCEA, with the residents of the area with the purpose of payment of compensation to them.
With that aim, the BCEA transferred into R.K.’s personal bank account an unspecified amount of money received originally from the State Oil Fund and designated for compensation of relocated residents.
The compensation was fixed by the BCEA in the amount of AZN 1,500 per sq.
m., for all properties located in the area.
In response to complaints by the residents, in a letter of 7 April 2010 (not available in the file), an official of the BCEA informed the residents that the original basis for the expropriation was the decision of 30 August 1989 of the Executive Committee of the Baku City Soviet of People’s Deputies envisaging construction of a park in the area in question in accordance with the General Development Plan of Baku.
The officials of the BCEA and the Nasimi District Police Office began the demolition works in the area in mid-April 2010.
In particular, at this stage, among others things, they removed the outside shutters of the door and windows of the applicant’s flat.
In the meantime, the applicant was offered AZN 1,500 per sq.
m. in compensation, an amount which he refused to accept as he deemed it to be far less than the actual market value of the flat.
In September 2010, while the judicial proceedings were still pending (see below), the applicant’s flat was completely demolished.
First set of proceedings On 20 April 2010 the applicant lodged an action with the Nasimi District Court, against the BCEA, the Nasimi District Executive Authority and the Nasimi District Police Office.
He argued that the authorities’ actions were unlawful and that the interference with his property rights was in breach of the requirements of the Constitution, the Civil Code and the Housing Code concerning the inviolability of private property and the procedures for expropriation and State purchase of private property, as well as the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention.
He sought a ruling from the court ordering inter alia that the defendants stop their unlawful actions, restore his property to its previous condition and pay him AZN 15,000 in compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages inflicted up to that point.
The BCEA lodged a counter-claim, asking the court to annul the applicant’s ownership right and documents certifying it.
The BCEA argued that the original privatisation of the flat by its previous owner in 2007 had been unlawful because, in the BCEA’s opinion, it was contrary to a decision of the Soviet of Ministers of the Azerbaijan SSR issued in 1987 approving the General Development Plan of Baku and designating the area in question as a “relocation area”.
The BCEA argued that, therefore, the applicant wrongfully owned an “unlawfully privatised flat”.
It further requested the court to order the applicant’s relocation from the current flat, on the condition that the authorities’ provide him another accommodation.
On 17 May 2010 the applicant lodged a request with the court, asking inter alia to admit as evidence an expert evaluation report of 17 April 2010, which estimated the current market value of his flat at AZN 152,000.
He noted that this evidence was important in view of the fact that the BCEA was offering him only AZN 1,500 per sq.
m. While the case was still pending before the Nasimi District Court, in September 2010 the applicant’s flat was demolished (see above).
Following this, on 27 September 2010 the applicant updated his original claim, increasing his claim in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to AZN 500,000.
On 27 September 2010 the Nasimi District Court delivered its judgment.
The court dismissed the part of the BCEA’s counter-claim seeking the annulment of the applicant’s ownership right, finding that the time-limit for challenging the lawfulness of the original privatisation had expired.
However, it upheld the part of the counter-claim concerning the request for the applicant’s forced eviction to a new accommodation provided by the BCEA, reasoning that, since the applicant refused to accept the monetary compensation offered (AZN 1,500 per sq.
m.), the only other option was to give him another accommodation instead.
As to the applicant’s claims, the court rejected them, finding firstly that the BCEA’s and the other defendants’ actions could not be considered under domestic law as “interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions” and that the court did not see how any action by the defendants had violated the applicant’s rights or freedoms.
Secondly, the court found that the applicant had failed to prove that he had suffered any pecuniary or non‐pecuniary damage.
In view of the above findings, the court ordered that the applicant be evicted and provided with a new flat of the same size and equivalent conditions.
The applicant appealed, reiterating his claims and arguments, maintaining that the BCEA had no competence under the domestic law to expropriate private property, and arguing that the first-instance court had failed to properly apply the relevant domestic law and that its interpretation of the law was manifestly wrong.
On 27 January 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.
By a decision of 22 June 2011 the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s appeal, quashed the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 27 January 2010 and remitted the case.
The Supreme Court found inter alia that the appellate court had failed to correctly apply the domestic law and had failed to assess the defendants’ actions as an unlawful and unjustified interference with the applicant’s rights within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the domestic law and the Convention.
By a judgment of 14 October 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal partially granted the applicant’s claim, finding that there had been an unlawful interference by the defendants with this property rights.
However, since the property had already been demolished, the court found that it was not possible to restore it to its previous condition and that, therefore, the applicant should be paid compensation for pecuniary damage.
Taking as the basis the BCEA’s initial offer of compensation, the court ordered that the applicant should be paid AZN 1,500 per sq.
m., for a total amount of AZN 42,000.
The court dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, finding that he had failed to substantiate it.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, reiterating his previous arguments and complaining that, despite the legal requirement for compensation to correspond to the market value of the property and despite the existence of clear evidence showing that the market value of his flat was much higher than the amount proposed by the BCEA, the appellate court based its award on the amount of compensation fixed by the BCEA in an unlawful and arbitrary manner.
By a decision of 21 February 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, agreeing with the Baku Court of Appeal’s finding that the amount of AZN 42,000 constituted a “fair and reasonable” compensation and finding that the expert report of 17 April 2010, relied on by the applicant, had not been duly signed by the expert.
Second set of proceedings In the meantime, following the demolition of the flat and before the final decision in the above proceedings, the applicant and his family found themselves in a difficult financial situation.
Therefore, according to the applicant, he had no choice but to conclude, on 14 December 2010, a sale contract with R.K. who formally purchased the already-demolished flat from him.
The applicant was paid AZN 42,000 pursuant to the contract.
On 11 January 2011 the applicant lodged an action with the Nasimi District Court, against R.K. and the BCEA, seeking annulment of the sale contract of 14 December 2010, arguing that it was a contract concluded in bad faith, whereby R.K., being the agent of the BCEA which had abused its authority by unlawfully interfering with the applicant’s property rights, had taken advantage of the applicant’s situation and had forced him to accept extremely unfavourable terms.
The applicant asked the court to declare the contract invalid, to order the restitution of the flat, and to order the defendants to pay him AZN 250,000 for pecuniary damage and AZN 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
By a judgment of 1 March 2011 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.
On 12 May 2011 and 13 October 2011, respectively, the Baku Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals.
The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that both sets of proceedings were unfair, that the domestic courts were not independent and did not constitute an effective remedy, and that their judgments and decisions were unreasoned because they failed to apply the legal provisions clearly applicable to his case.
He also complained that the first set of proceedings did not comply with the “reasonable time” requirement.
The applicant complains under Article of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention that there was an unlawful and unjustified interference with his possessions.
CASE OF CAHİT DEMİREL v. TURKEY
(Application no. 18623/03)
7 July 2009
This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Cahit Demirel v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,Ireneu Cabral Barreto,Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,Danutė Jočienė,Dragoljub Popović,Nona Tsotsoria,Işıl Karakaş, judges,and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 June 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case originated in an application (no. 18623/03) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Cahit Demirel (“the applicant”), on 29 April 2003. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr M. Beştaş and Mrs M. Beştaş, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3. On 11 September 2007 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate to the Government the complaints concerning the applicant’s right to release pending trial, to take proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. It also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Batman. 5. On 1 April 1996 the applicant was arrested by gendarmerie officers while he was leaving Batman. He was then transferred to the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Batman Police Headquarters on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. 6. On 18 April 1996 the applicant was brought before the Batman public prosecutor and the judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court. The judge remanded the applicant in custody. 7. On an unspecified day the Batman public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 8. On 22 May 1996 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with other persons, charging him with membership of the PKK under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code. 9. On 30 July 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case. 10. On 25 December 2001 the Fourth Chamber of the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. 11. Throughout the proceedings, the applicant and his representative requested several times that the applicant be released pending trial. At the end of each hearing the State Security Court rejected the applicant’s requests, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file. 12. On 9 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The case was subsequently remitted to the Diyarbakır State Security Court. 13. On 13 May 2003 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial. 14. On 23 March 2004 the State Security Court once again convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. 15. On 19 October 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 23 March 2004. 16. Pursuant to Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, abolishing State Security Courts, the case against the applicant was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court. 17. On 2 May 2005 the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided that the proceedings against the applicant should be terminated on the ground that the statutory time‐limit under Article 102 of the Criminal Code had expired. This decision to terminate the case became final as neither the applicant nor the public prosecutor appealed. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
18. The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in Çobanoğlu and Budak v. Turkey (no. 45977/99, §§ 29-30, 30 January 2007). THE LAW
19. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill‐founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
20. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that he had been detained pending trial for an excessive length of time. Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, he complained that there had been no effective remedy to challenge the first-instance court orders for his continued detention. A. Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
21. The Government submitted that there had been a genuine public interest in the detention of the applicant, who had been charged with a terrorism-related offence. They maintained that his detention had also been necessary to prevent him from committing a further offence, absconding and removing evidence. 22. The applicant maintained his allegations and contested the Government’s submissions. 23. The Court notes that, when calculating the period to be taken into consideration, the multiple, consecutive detention periods served by the applicant should be regarded as a whole. While assessing the reasonableness of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, it should make a global evaluation of the accumulated periods of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 36-37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)). Consequently, after deducting the period when the applicant was detained after conviction under Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention – namely the period between 25 December 2001 and 9 October 2002 – from the total time that he was deprived of his liberty, the period to be taken into consideration in the instant case is nearly six years and four months. 24. The Court further notes from the material in the case file that the State Security Court considered the applicant’s detention at the end of every hearing. On each occasion it extended that detention using identical, stereotyped terms, such as “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”. 25. The Court considers that, in general, the expression “the state of the evidence” may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt. The Court further acknowledges the seriousness of the offence with which the applicant was charged and the severity of the sentence which he faced if found guilty. In this respect, the Court agrees that the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding (see Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, § 107, 22 July 2008). However, in the Court’s view, neither the state of evidence nor the gravity of the charges can by themselves serve to justify a length of preventive detention of over six years and four months (see and Mehmet Yavuz v. Turkey, no. 47043/99, § 39, 24 July 2007). 26. In this connection, the Court observes that the Diyarbakır State Security Court failed to indicate to what extent the applicant’s release would have posed a risk after the passage of time, in particular in the later stages of the proceedings. Furthermore, the first-instance court never gave consideration to the application of a preventive measure, such as a prohibition on leaving the country or release on bail, other than the continued detention of the applicant (see Mehmet Yavuz, cited above, § 40). 27. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the length of the applicant’s detention, given the stereotypical reasoning of the first-instance court, has not been shown to have been justified. 28. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. B. Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
29. The Government did not make any submissions regarding the applicant’s contentions under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 30. The applicant maintained his allegations. 31. The Court observes at the outset that the applicant requested to be released pending trial several times before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which dismissed all such requests. The trial court therefore had had the opportunity to end the applicant’s alleged lengthy detention and to avoid or to redress an alleged breach of the Convention (see Acunbay v. Turkey, nos. 61442/00 and 61445/00, § 48, 31 May 2005, and Mehmet Şah Çelik v. Turkey, no. 48545/99, § 26, 24 July 2007). 32. The Court further notes that it has already found that the remedy provided by Articles 297-304 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the applicant could object to the decisions ordering his continued detention, offered little prospect of success in practice, and that it did not provide for a procedure that was genuinely adversarial for the accused (see Koşti and Others v. Turkey, no. 74321/01, § 22, 3 May 2007; Bağrıyanık v. Turkey, no. 43256/04, §§ 50 and 51, 5 June 2007; Doğan Yalçın v. Turkey, no. 15041/03, § 43, 19 February 2008). 33. In the present case, there is no element which would require the Court to depart from its previous findings. The Court therefore concludes that there was no remedy within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 by which the applicant could challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention. 34. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
35. The applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him. He relied on Article 6 § 1, which provides as relevant:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
36. The Government maintained that, in the circumstances of the present case, the criminal proceedings could not be considered to have been unreasonably long. In this respect, they referred to the number of defendants who had been on trial for terrorist-related offences. The Government further submitted that the applicant and the other defendants had contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings by requesting extensions for the submission of their defence statements. 37. The applicant maintained his allegations. 38. The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 1 April 1996, when the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody, and ended on 2 May 2005, when the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided to discontinue the proceedings. The period under consideration thus lasted nine years and one month before two levels of jurisdiction. 39. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). 40. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see, for example, Sertkaya v. Turkey, no. 77113/01, § 21, 22 June 2006; Hasan Döner v. Turkey, no. 53546/99, § 54, 20 November 2007; Uysal and Osal v. Turkey, no. 1206/03, § 33, 13 December 2007). 41. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present application. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 42. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION
43. Article 46 of the Convention reads as follows:
“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.”
44. The Court observes at the outset that up until 1 January 2009 68 judgments against Turkey, in which the main legal question was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention and in which a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention was found, became definitive. The Court further notes that in a number of judgments against Turkey it has also found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention due to the absence of a domestic remedy which was genuinely adversarial or which could offer reasonable prospects of success whereby the applicants could challenge the lawfulness of their pre‐trial detention (see paragraph 32 above). Moreover, more than 140 applications against Turkey in which the applicants allege a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 or 4 in relation to their pre-trial detentions are currently pending before the Court. 45. The Court further observes that in almost all of its judgments against Turkey where there was a violation of Article 5 § 3, it found that the domestic courts ordered the applicants’ continued detention pending trial using identical, stereotyped terms, such as “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the file” (see, among many others, Dereci v. Turkey, no. 77845/01, § 38, 24 May 2005; Solmaz, cited above, § 41; Akyol v. Turkey, no. 23438/02, § 30, 20 September 2007). The Court also found that the courts failed to give consideration to the application of other preventive measures foreseen by Turkish law, such as a prohibition on leaving the country or release on bail, other than the continued detention of the applicants (see Yavuz, cited above, § 40; Duyum v. Turkey, no. 57963/00, § 38, 27 March 2007; Getiren v. Turkey, cited above, § 107). Similarly, the Court has repeatedly held there is no remedy in Turkish law within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 by which applicants could challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention (see paragraph 30 above). 46. Thus, the Court considers that the violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention found in the instant case originated in widespread and systemic problems arising out of the malfunctioning of the Turkish criminal justice system and the state of the Turkish legislation, respectively (see Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, §§ 58 and 60, 3 February 2009; Gülmez v. Turkey, no. 16330/02, § 60, 20 May 2008). 47. In this connection, it is to be reiterated that, where the Court finds a violation, the respondent State has a legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction under Article 41, but also to select, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects. The respondent State remains free, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court’s judgment (see Kauczor, cited above, § 61; Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII). 48. Having regard to the systemic situation which it has identified, the Court is of the opinion that general measures at national level must be taken in the execution of the present judgment in order to ensure the effective protection of the right to liberty and security in accordance with the guarantees laid down in Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
49. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
50. The applicant claimed 36,975 Turkish liras (TRY) (17,900 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 75,000 (EUR 36,300) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 51. The Government contested these claims. 52. As regards the alleged pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, the Court observes that the applicant did not produce any document in support of his claim, which the Court accordingly dismisses. 53. However, it accepts that the applicant must have suffered some non-pecuniary damage which cannot be sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation alone. Consequently, taking into account the circumstances of the case and having regard to its case-law, the Court awards the applicant EUR 7,000. B. Costs and expenses
54. The applicant also claimed TRY 16,850 (EUR 8,154) for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. In this connection, he submitted a time sheet indicating twenty-eight hours’ legal work carried out by his legal representative and a table of costs and expenditures. 55. The Government maintained that only costs actually incurred can be reimbursed. In this connection, they submitted that all costs and expenses must be documented by the applicant. 56. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court finds it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 under this head. C. Default interest
57. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the remainder of the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‐pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, for costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise TulkensDeputy RegistrarPresident
. For a list of these judgments, see 1051st meeting (DH) (17-19 March 2009) of the Committee of Ministers, Appendix 9 - Demirel group against Turkey - 68 cases of length of detention and of length of criminal proceedings: