CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 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 } .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 } .s99B20489 { width:189.47pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s29DC814B { width:34.14pt; display:inline-block } .s8474D67B { width:82.14pt; display:inline-block } .s2D05DCA0 { width:127.47pt; display:inline-block } .sF0E5D02B { width:186.18pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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   464 30.9.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 No violation of Article 6 § 1 Kuibishev v. Bulgaria (application no. 39271/98)   Zaprianov v. Bulgaria (no. 41171/98) Valentin Kuibishev is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). In September 1996 he was arrested and detained pending trial on charges of forging bank guarantees with a view to obtaining loans. He was sentenced by the Sofia Court of Appeal to three years’ imprisonment. An appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed in December 2000.   Zaprian Iordanov Zaprianov is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1948. In May 1996 he was arrested and detained pending trial on suspicion of misappropriating public funds. In December 1999 he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation upheld his conviction in July 2000.   Both applicants complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights: that they were not brought promptly before a judge after their arrest, that their continued detention pending trial was unjustified and that they were unable to obtain a ruling on the lawfulness of their detention. They also complained of a breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against them.   Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) Mr Kuibishev alleged that he had no remedy to enable him to complain of the alleged violations of Article 5.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that, in both cases, the applicants were arrested and brought before an investigator who did not have power to make a binding decision to detain them and that neither the investigator nor the prosecutor who confirmed the detention were sufficiently independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 5 § 3, in view of the practical role they played in the prosecution and their potential participation as a party to the criminal proceedings. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, in breach of Article 5 § 3.   Having regard to the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in Kuibishev v. Bulgaria – which lasted over one year and nine months – and the lack of attention on the part of the authorities to their duty to keep its duration as short as possible, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 3 to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. In Zaprianov v. Bulgaria the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 because the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention – which lasted over three years – was not justified throughout the whole period.   Observing that the proceedings in Kuibishev v. Bulgaria were not adversarial and that the courts did not provide judicial review of the scope required by Article 5 § 4, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 in the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation. Finding that the scope and nature of the judicial review available to the applicant in Zaprianov v. Bulgaria was inadequate, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   In Kuibishev v. Bulgaria   the Court found that the length of the proceedings – which lasted four years and three months – were not excessive, given that the case went through four stages, the investigation and three levels of jurisdiction. In Zaprianov v. Bulgaria the Court observed that the criminal proceedings against the applicant – which lasted at least four years and two months – were factually complex and went through three levels of jurisdiction. The case was dealt with speedily by the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation and the applicant was also responsible for certain delays. In both cases, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   6 § 1.   The Court awarded Mr Kuibishev 2,500   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses and Mr Zaprianov EUR   3,500 for non-pecuniary damage and his legal representative, EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (Both judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Mancheva v. Bulgaria (no. 39609/98)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Minka Slavcheva Mancheva is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968. At the material time she lived at Svoboda (Bulgaria). She brought proceedings against her former employer, the Social Care Centre, seeking compensation for losses she had sustained as a result of an industrial accident that had damaged her health.   On 31 March 1995 Chirpan District Court partially granted the applicant’s claim and awarded her 15,000 Bulgarian levs (BGL) in non ‑ pecuniary damages and BGL 4,500 for costs. The judgment became final on an unspecified date.   Following the European Court of Human Right’s admissibility decision in the case, on 21   February 2003, the municipality of Chirpan paid 68.69 new Bulgarian levs (BGN) [2] into a bank account opened by them in the applicant’s name. The applicant complained of breaches of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) on account of her inability to secure payment of sums due to her.   The Court found that the Bulgarian authorities failed to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in question from May 1996 – March 2000. The problems encountered by the applicant were exacerbated by the fact that Bulgarian law did not provide for any clearly regulated complaints procedure before an independent body with power to issue binding orders in cases of failure of State institutions to execute judgments against them. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court further found that the impossibility for the applicant to obtain the execution of the judgment in question until 17 March 2000 constituted an interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 40896/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Ivanka Markova Nikolova is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). In February 1995 an auditor’s report on the company for which she worked accused her of misappropriating funds. In October 1995 she was arrested and charged. In February 1996 she was placed under house arrest. Following a plea bargain in January 2000 she was sentenced, among other things, to three years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the length of her detention pending trial – two years, five months and 23 days – and about being placed under house arrest. She further complained that she was unable to challenge the lawfulness of her house arrest. Lastly, she alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) on account of the length of the criminal proceedings, which lasted approximately five years.   Noting that, at the relevant time, there was no procedure for judicial review of house arrest under Bulgarian law, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4, in that the applicant could not apply to a court to review the lawfulness of her house arrest.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   4,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and her legal representative EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Pramov v. Bulgaria (no. 42986/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Rumen Dimitrov Pramov is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Karlovo (Bulgaria).   The applicant, who was an employee of the national railway company, was dismissed for misconduct in 1995 on the ground that he had embezzled money from the sale of tickets on trains. He applied to Karlovo District Court to have his dismissal declared unlawful, be reinstated in his post and obtain compensation. The court noted that disputes concerning disciplinary sanctions against railway staff did not come within the courts’ jurisdiction and that appeals could be lodged only with the hierarchical authorities; consequently, the court declared the applicant’s case inadmissible. In 1996 Mr Pramov appealed unsuccessfully against that decision and applied unsuccessfully to have the proceedings reopened.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not had access to a court which would rule on the lawfulness of his dismissal.   The Court noted that, at the time of the applicant’s dismissal, an appeal to the hierarchical authority was the only option open to him; in this particular case, that authority was the railway company’s regional administration, a body which clearly lacked the attributes of independence and impartiality required of a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.   Contrary to the Bulgarian Government’s allegations, the Court considered that the applicant did not have access to a hierarchical administrative remedy and that a civil remedy was also unavailable to him. In August 1996 the Supreme Court had reversed the previous case-law by accepting that the lawfulness of dismissals from the railway company should be subject to judicial review. However, this had not been the case at the time of the applicant’s dismissal, and he had been unable to lodge a fresh appeal following the reversal of the previous judicial position.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that Mr Pramov had not had access to a court which would rule on the lawfulness of his dismissal. Accordingly, it held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   2,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Murat Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 40498/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Murat Kılıç is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Ankara. In 1996 Ankara State Security Court found him guilty of being a member of an illegal organisation, the PRK ( Partiye Rizgaiye Kurdistan ). It sentenced him, among other things, to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   The applicant argued that he was denied a fair trial, as one of the members of the State Security Court that tried and convicted him was a military judge. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to an independent and impartial tribunal).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to an independent and impartial tribunal) of the Convention and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses less EUR   630 granted by way of legal aid. (The judgment is available only in English.)     ***   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. [2] As of 1 July 1999 BGL 1,000 became BGN 1.