CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 22 juillet 2004

.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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sAAA0B4EC { width:314.23pt; display:inline-block } .sCB3ED31A { width:121.49pt; display:inline-block } .s79DAF938 { width:98.17pt; display:inline-block } .sA9F01C3 { width:196.14pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   377 22.7.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Italy and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]       No violation Article 6 § 1 Hadjikostova v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (application no. 44987/98) No violation of Article 13 The applicant, Iana Hadjikostova, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Sofia. She brought proceedings as an heir to an estate for a declaration that she owned part of the land on which the Grand Hotel in Sofia had been built.   She complained under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the civil proceedings (six years and two months) and under Article 13 of the lack of an effective remedy under domestic law.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 6 § 1 or 13 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Zhbanov v. Bulgaria (no. 45563/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Vladimir Nikolaevich Zhbanov, is a Russian national, born in 1950 and living in Kiev, (Ukraine). At the material time, he lived in Bulgaria.   On 30 March 1994 criminal proceedings were opened against him concerning the embezzlement of 20,000   Bulgarian levs from a cooperative farm in liquidation whose legal counsel he had been. On 15 December 2001, the applicant left Bulgaria and went to Ukraine.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings against him lasted an unreasonably long time (at least eight years and four months).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Buffalo Srl in liquidation v. Italy (no. 38746/97)   Just satisfaction The applicant, Buffalo Srl, is a limited liability company whose head office was in Italy until 2001 and which was registered as being in voluntary liquidation.   Between 1985 and 1992 the applicant company paid sums on account of corporation tax in excess of the amounts it owed the State. It was consequently entitled to tax rebates which the tax authorities started to repay in 1997. However, it has not yet been repaid the total amount due.   During that period the applicant company was forced to seek financing from banks and private individuals. It thereby incurred costs and had to pay interest at a higher rate than was paid by the State on the tax rebates.   In a judgment of 3 July 2003, the European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant company had been the victim of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of unreasonable delays in the reimbursement of the tax rebates by the authorities. However, it reserved the question of just satisfaction as it was not ready for decision.   In today’s judgment, the Court decided, unanimously, to award the applicant company EUR 75,000 for damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses (The judgment is available only in French.)   Elia Srl v. Italy (no. 37710/97)   Just satisfaction The applicant, Elia Srl, is a private company formed under Italian law whose registered office is in Rome. It owns approximately 65,000 square metres of land in the municipality of Pomezia.   Under the general town-development plan for Pomezia, which was put to the vote by the municipal authorities in 1967 and approved by the Lazio regional authority in 1974, the applicant company’s land was set aside for use as a park for the general public. Consequently, an absolute ban was imposed on building on the land pending its expropriation. The ban lapsed in 1979. From that point on, pending a decision by the Pomezia municipal authorities on its future use, the land was subject to the rules in Law no. 10 of 1977 and to the building restrictions applicable thereunder.   In 1995 the Pomezia municipal authorities resolved to adopt a detailed urban-development plan and imposed a further absolute ban on building with a view to the expropriation of the applicant company’s land. The detailed development plan was adopted in 1999.   In a judgment of 2 August 2001, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the excessive burden the applicant company had had to bear due to the restrictions on the land, but reserved the question of just satisfaction as it was not ready for decision.   In today’s judgment, the Court decided unanimously to award the applicant company EUR 1,000,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 7,500 for costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings in Strasbourg. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Muhey Yaşar and Others v. Turkey (no. 36973/97) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The ten applicants, Muhey Yaşar, Mustafa Karadağ, Şevket Kılınç, Cuma Özdemir, Ramazan Özdemir, Mehmet Sait Kendirci, Abdurrahman Kendirci, Salih Arslan, Mehmet Emin Kayıran and Zarife Bostancı, are Turkish nationals, who live at Şanlıurfa (Turkey). They owned properties at Birecik (Turkey) which were expropriated by the State in 1996.   They complained of a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as a result of the authorities’ delay in paying them additional compensation for expropriation that had been awarded to them by the courts. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court declared the complaints of Mustafa Karadağ, Cuma and Ramazan Özdemir, Mehmet Sait Kendirci, Abdurrahman Kendirci and Salih Arslan admissible, and the complaints of the remaining applicants inadmissible. It found that the delays in the payment of the additional compensation for expropriation were attributable to the authorities and had caused the applicants to sustain damage in addition to that they had suffered as result of the expropriation of their properties. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It did not consider it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention separately.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court made the following awards in respect of pecuniary damage EUR 1,435 to Mustafa Karadağ, EUR 12,500 to Cuma and Ramazan Özdemir jointly, EUR 12,500 to Ramazan Özdemir and Mehmet Sait Kendirci jointly, and EUR 8,350 to Abdurrahman Kendirci and Salih Arslan jointly. It also awarded the applicants EUR 400 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     ***   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) 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.