CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 janvier 2005

.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 } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s14DFEFD7 { width:85.44pt; display:inline-block } .sAA0933DF { width:170.16pt; display:inline-block } .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   039 27.01.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria and Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1]     Violation Article 6 § 1 Sidjimov v. Bulgaria (application no. 55057/00)   Violation Article 13 The applicant, Valentin Kotzev Sidjimov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Pazardjik (Bulgaria). On 19 August 1993 he was arrested and remanded in custody, charged with rape of a minor. The proceedings were apparently still pending in November 2004.   The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him were excessively lengthy and that he had no effective remedy. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings at issue had extended over a period of more than 11 years. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 and consequently concluded that there had been a violation of the Convention in that respect. In addition, as the applicant had had no effective remedy that would have enabled him to expedite the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 13.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 1,500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English).     Buzatu v. Romania (no. 34642/97)   Just satisfaction The applicant, Sanda Buzatu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Bucharest.   She had applied to the European Court of Human Rights complaining of the Supreme Court of Justice’s finding that the courts had no jurisdiction to determine an action for recovery of possession, and of interference with her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.   In a judgment of 1 June 2004 the Court had held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1 on account of the denial of a fair hearing and of access to a court, and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It had held that the question of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In today’s judgment, the Court held unanimously that the Romanian State was to return to Ms Buzatu the flats in issue and the land on which they were situated within three months of the date on which the judgment became final. Failing that, the Romanian authorities were to pay her EUR 279,852 in respect of pecuniary damage. In addition, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,564 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.