CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 juillet 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s387420DA { width:59.43pt; display:inline-block } .sF52B9BF1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:324pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   385 7.7.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   All three are repetitive cases , in which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.   Mihajlovic v. Croatia (application no. 21752/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Nevenka Mihajlović and Milorad Mihajlović, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1932 and 1958 respectively and live in Hrgovljani (Croatia).   On 12 February 1992 the applicants’ house in Hrgovljani was blown up by unknown perpetrators. They brought proceedings for damages against the State, which were stayed on 5 February 1996, under the 1996 Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act.   The applicants complained that the enactment of the 1996 amendment violated their right of access to a court. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Convention.   The Court considered that the fact that, following a legislative amendment, the Croatian courts had not determined the applicants’ civil claims for seven and a half years (of which the Court can take into account five years [2] ) had infringed their right of access to a court.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13. The Court awarded the applicants, jointly, 7,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.) Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Malinovskiy v. Russia (no. 41302/02) Shpakovskiy v. Russia (no. 41307/02) The applicants, Igor Mikhailovich Malinovskiy and Yuriy Iosifovich Shpakovskiy, are Russian nationals who were born in 1962 and in 1956 and live in Staryy Oskol, Belgorod Region (Russia) and Kostroma (Russia) respectively.   Malinovskiy - A judgment of 10 December 2001 found that Mr Malinovskiy – who was considered to be disabled following his involvement in the emergency operations at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant disaster in 1986 – was entitled to free state housing.   Enforcement proceedings were started but subsequently discontinued, however, given the lack of available flats.   According to the applicant, on 5 March 2004 he went on a hunger strike with four others to protest against the poor social protection of the Chernobyl victims. The mayor of Staryy Oskol launched a public appeal on behalf of the protestors and raised enough money to provide all of them with housing. The applicant was subsequently assigned a flat measuring 86.39m2 valued at 834,960 Russian roubles on 8 July 2004.   The Russian Government claimed that the flat was granted in the framework of the enforcement proceedings.   Shpakovskiy - In 1998, after being made redundant after 23 years of military service, the applicant became eligible for social housing and was placed on a waiting list. On 10   June 2003 he was issued with an occupancy voucher for a flat in Kostroma measuring 70.77 m 2 .   Both applicants complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour, relying on Article 6 (access to court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   In the case Malinovskiy the Court found no factual basis for the Government’s version of events and assumed that the flat was granted as a consequence of the mayor’s appeal. The Court observed that no attempts have been made by the authorities before the applicant’s hunger strike to provide him with housing or to make alternative arrangements.   In both cases the Court concluded that, by failing for a substantial period of time to take the necessary measures to comply with final judicial decisions, the Russian authorities had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, both applicants had a claim to a “social tenancy agreement” which was sufficiently established to constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The fact that it was impossible for the applicants to obtain the execution of the judgments in question for a substantial period of time constituted an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, for which the Russian Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   The Court awarded EUR 3,000 to Mr Malinovskiy and EUR 1,500 to Mr Shpakovskiy for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are only available 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] After the ratification of the Convention by Croatia on 5 November 1997.