CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 septembre 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sC7A857D { width:137.48pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sE66965E4 { width:345.57pt; display:inline-block } .s28517E81 { width:140.12pt; display:inline-block } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sD81182C { width:62.1pt; display:inline-block } .s35008A5F { width:18.55pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sF8A2121E { width:121.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC84A01E0 { width:48.78pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .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   448 23.9.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Greece, Russia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 47829/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 13 Anton Stoyanov Dimitrov, a Bulgarian national born in 1934 and living in Sofia, complained about the length of the proceedings (which lasted 11 years and five months, of which the Court can take into consideration ten years and eight months [2] ), concerning his claim for the restitution of agricultural land, and that he did not have an effective remedy. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   Concerning Article 13,in this and the following two cases against Bulgaria, the Court found that the applicants did not have access to any effective domestic remedies whereby they could have expedited the examination of the domestic court proceedings.   Furthermore, the Court did not find it established that in Bulgarian law there existed the possibility to obtain compensation or other redress for excessively lengthy proceedings.   The Court awarded Mr Dimitrov 2,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria (nos. 54178/00 & 59901/00) Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 13 Djemil Aliev Osmanov and Ali Ramiz Yuseinov are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1958 and 1964 respectively and live in the village of Aleko Konstantinovo, in the Pazardjik region of Bulgaria.   They complained, in particular, about the length of the criminal proceedings against them, concerning the destruction of a walnut tree owned by a State ‑ owned company – which lasted at least six years and three months – and that they did not have an effective remedy. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13.   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 and awarded the applicants EUR 3,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and their lawyer EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Rachevi v. Bulgaria (no. 47877/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 13 Irina Vasileva Racheva and her daughter Nadezhda Teodosieva Racheva are Bulgarian nationals born in 1955 and 1979 respectively and living in Sofia.   On 1 July 1988 the applicants were hit by a taxi, leaving Irina Racheva with serious injuries and Nadezhda, who was then nine years old, with life-threatening injuries. Subsequently her spleen had to be surgically removed. On 8 December 1988 the taxi driver was found guilty of negligently causing serious bodily injury.   The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings concerning their subsequent claims for damages, which lasted approximately 11-and-a-half years [3] , of which the Court can take into consideration around ten years and three months, and that they did not have an effective remedy. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13.   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 and awarded the applicants EUR 3,000 and EUR 6,000 respectively for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Agathos and 49 Others v. Greece (no. 19841/02)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants are 50 retired officers of the armed forces. In June 1994 they applied to the Greek administrative courts for an order requiring the Navy Mutual Fund to pay them a supplementary pension. Their application was dismissed at first instance and a subsequent appeal by them was declared inadmissible by the Athens Court of Appeal in November 2000, on the ground that the deposit payable by law on appeals had not been paid.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the length and fairness of the proceedings and of the interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court declared the application admissible insofar as it concerned the length of the proceedings and inadmissible as to the remainder. It found that the proceedings had lasted six years, five months and six days for two levels of jurisdiction. That period did not satisfy the “reasonable-time requirement” of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a breach of that provision. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them EUR 300 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)         Kotsaridis v. Greece (no. 71498/01)           Violation Article 5 § 4                   Violation Article 6 § 1 Michail Kotsaridis, a Greek national who was born in 1952, is currently being held in Korydallos Prison (Greece).   In August 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against him on charges of theft of antiquities and handling stolen goods. Following his arrest in Germany where he was living at the time, he was extradited to Greece in October 1999. He was held in detention pending trial until his conviction by the Athens Assize Court and sentence to ten years and six months’ imprisonment for handling stolen antiquities and unlawfully exporting antiquities to Germany. An appeal by the applicant against that judgment is currently pending in the Greek courts.   The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention of the refusal to allow him to appear in person before the Indictment Division responsible for deciding whether he should remain in pre-trial detention. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the criminal proceedings.   The Court observed that it had previously ruled that the Greek legal system at the material time did not comply with Article 5 § 4,   as it did not permit the person in custody to take sufficient part in proceedings whose outcome was decisive to the issue of whether or not he should remain in custody. By refusing to allow the applicant to appear, the Indictment Division had deprived him of an opportunity to contest the reasons put forward for denying him bail properly. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   In addition, the proceedings which at the date of the Court’s judgment had lasted five years and five months for two levels of jurisdiction, did not satisfy the “reasonable-time requirement” of Article 6 § 1. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention on that account.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction) the Court awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Yemanakova v. Russia (no. 60408/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 13 Yulia Aleksandrovna Yemanakova, a Ukrainian national, was born in 1919 and lives in Berdyansk, Ukraine.   In 1930 the family property, including a two-storey house in Sorochinsk, in the Orenburg Region of Russia, was confiscated. In 1989 the applicant’s father was rehabilitated post mortem and, in 1992, the applicant brought proceedings to have her property right to the house recognised.   She complains that the proceedings, which lasted some six years – of which   the Court can take into consideration three years and ten months [4] – were unreasonably long, in violation of Article 6   §   1, and that she had no effective remedy, in breach of Article 13.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation Article 10 Feridun Yazar and Others v. Turkey (no. 42713/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Feridun Yazar, Harun Çakmak, Güven Özata and Abdülkadir Gezici, are four Turkish nationals who were born in 1944, 1959, 1945 and 1963 respectively and live in Ankara. They are founder members of the People’s Labour Party ( HEP ), of which Mr Yazar was also chairman at the material time.   The applicants were prosecuted for propaganda undermining the integrity of the State on account of speeches they had made in 1991 and 1992 at the HEP ’s first and second extraordinary congresses. They were found guilty of the offences by a State Security Court, which sentenced Mr Yazar, Mr Çakmak and Mr Özata to one year’s imprisonment and Mr   Gezici to two years’.   The applicants submitted that their conviction infringed Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. Furthermore, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they maintained that the State Security Court which had tried and convicted them was not an independent and impartial tribunal because one of its members was a military judge.   As regards Mr Yazar, Mr Çakmak and Mr Özata, the Court found that the reasons stated by the Turkish courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with their right to freedom of expression. They had been speaking as politicians, as players on the Turkish political scene, and had not encouraged the use of violence, armed resistance or insurrection or resorted to hate speech. That, in the Court’s view, was the main consideration. However, the Court noted that the terms used by Mr Gezici in his speech made his stance on the issue of recourse to force for separatist ends ambiguous. The penalty imposed in his case could accordingly reasonably be regarded as meeting a “pressing social need”. However the nature and severity of the penalty imposed were also factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference.   The Court considered that the applicants’ sentences were disproportionate to the aims pursued and, therefore, not “necessary in a democratic society”. Consequently, they held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The Court noted once again that a civilian who was required to answer criminal charges in a State Security Court that included a military judge among its members had legitimate reason to fear that the court was not independent and impartial. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and reiterated that in such cases the most appropriate form of redress was in principle for the applicant to receive a retrial without delay by an independent and impartial court.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the following amounts for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,000 to Mr Yazar, EUR 5,500 to Mr Özata, EUR   4,500 to Mr Çakmak and EUR 3,500 to Mr Gezici. It also made them a joint award of EUR 3,500 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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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] From 7 September 1992, when the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in Bulgaria. [3] From 7 September 1992, when the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in Bulgaria.   [4] From 5 May 1998, when the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in Russia.