issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 428 (2019)  
10.12.2019  
Judgments of 10 December 2019  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing four judgments1:  
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;  
a separate press release has been issued for one other Chamber judgment in the case of Kavala v.  
Turkey (application no. 28749/18).  
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).  
Bacaksız v. Turkey (application no. 24245/09)  
The applicant, Süleyman Bacaksız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Denizli  
(Turkey).  
The case concerned Mr Bacaksız’s complaint that he had not been able to participate in proceedings  
against him following a car accident.  
The car accident in question occurred in 2000, causing injury to three drivers and their passengers.  
The police report drawn up on the scene noted that the applicant was at fault because he had  
crossed into the opposite lane, crashing into an oncoming car.  
In the criminal proceedings brought against him he was, however, acquitted in 2004 and one of the  
other drivers was found to be at fault.  
In the meantime, the courts had found for an insurance company in civil proceedings brought  
against the applicant for reimbursement of the sums it had had to pay to one of the other drivers as  
a result of the accident. The proceedings had been conducted in the applicant’s absence because the  
Civil Court had not been able to locate him and serve the summons on him.  
The applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation, requesting that the first-instance  
decision be quashed because he had only learnt of the proceedings when one of his relatives living  
at his previous address had found the summons posted on his door. He also argued that he had been  
fully acquitted in the criminal proceedings concerning the accident.  
The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal in 2008, holding that the decision had been  
lawful and that, in any case, a civil court was not bound by the conclusions of a criminal court. It did  
not respond to his argument about not being able to participate in the proceedings.  
Relying in substance on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human  
Rights, Mr Bacaksız complained that the civil proceedings against him had been unfair because he  
had been unable to participate in them.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Just satisfaction: Mr Bacaksız did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.  
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber  
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a  
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and  
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the  
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.  
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
Just Satisfaction  
Uzan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 19620/05, 41487/05, 17613/08, and  
19316/08)*  
The case concerned attachment orders made in respect of the property of three relatives of the  
managers of İmarbank and two of their employees.  
The applicants are Jasmin Paris Uzan, Renç Emre Uzan, Ayla Uzan-Ashaboğlu, Nimet Hülya Talu and  
Bilge Doğru.  
In a judgment of 5 March 2019 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol  
No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention.  
Today’s judgment concerned the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the  
Convention  
Just satisfaction: The Court decided to strike out the applications in so far as it concerned the claims  
for just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage relating to the violation of Article 1 of  
Protocol No. 1. It further held that Turkey was to pay 20,000 euros (EUR) jointly to Jasmin Paris Uzan  
and Renç Emre Uzan and EUR 10,000 to Ayla Uzan-Ashaboğlu, for costs and expenses.  
Radzevil v. Ukraine (no. 36600/09)  
The applicant, Boris Radzevil, is a Ukrainian national, now deceased, who was born in 1936. Until his  
death in 2016 he lived in Odessa (Ukraine).  
The case concerned the proceedings brought against him for hitting a man on a pedestrian crossing  
while driving to work. The man subsequently died of his injuries.  
The proceedings were brought against him in September 2002 after he had gone to the hospital to  
enquire about the victim and had explained to a police officer present that he had accidentally hit  
him with his car.  
During his trial, however, Mr Radzevil denied hitting the victim and said that he had suddenly fallen  
into his lane after an oncoming vehicle had gone past at very high speed.  
He was convicted in December 2006 for breaching traffic regulations and causing a fatal accident. He  
was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, but did not serve it as he was amnestied.  
In convicting him, the trial court essentially relied on eye-witness statements. It also referred to the  
police officer’s statement about a volunteered confession, as documented in an “explanation”  
signed by Mr Radzevil at the police station. It found the police officer’s statement plausible, but  
excluded the “explanation” from the evidence because it was not a proper procedural document.  
Mr Radzevil’s appeal against his conviction was unsuccessful, as was his request to admit two  
different lawyers to represent him in those proceedings. He lodged a cassation appeal with the  
Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court in January 2009.  
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Radzevil made  
a number of complaints of the unfairness of the proceedings against him. He also complained that  
the length of the proceedings, more than six years, had been excessive.  
No violation of Article 6 (fairness)  
Violation of Article 6 (length of proceedings)  
Just satisfaction: EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage  
2
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,  
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive  
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter  
@ECHR_Press.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)  
Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)  
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.  
3