CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 novembre 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 } .sAB82D76C { width:32.09pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s5FD0698E { width:9.89pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sAC3342B9 { width:281.57pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s150E3A1E { width:60.82pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   586 3.11.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   A summary of a repetitive case (in which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights) can be found at the end of this press release.     Kostov v. Bulgaria (application no 45980/99)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Kiril Konstantinov Kostov is a Bulgarian national, aged 46, who lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   On 10 December 1997 the applicant was arrested following a complaint lodged by his daughter and his ex-wife. He was placed under investigation on three counts of rape of his daughter, aged 16. After being placed in pre ‑ trial detention, he lodged two appeals against his detention. The first was declared inadmissible as being out of time, as it had been lodged after the legal time-limit had expired. According to the applicant, the second appeal was not heard.   On 16 June 1998 the applicant was found guilty as charged and was given a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment. He was released on 18 June 1998.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that he had not been brought promptly before a judge following his arrest, and that his appeals against his placement in pre ‑ trial detention had not been heard.   The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that it had previously found, in cases concerning the system of pre-trial detention that had existed in Bulgaria until 1 January 2000, that investigating officers and public prosecutors could not be considered sufficiently independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to order or approve pre-trial detention. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 as regards the applicant’s right to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.   As to the applicant’s appeals, the Court noted that the first appeal had been dismissed because the applicant had omitted to lodge it within the prescribed period of seven days. In the Court’s view, neither Bulgarian law and practice nor the decision dismissing his appeal had made clear to the applicant the consequences of that dismissal. He had therefore been unable to foresee how long he would have to remain in custody before obtaining a judicial review of his detention which, at the time the appeal in question was heard, had already lasted four months without being reviewed by an independent judge, owing to the failings in the system of pre ‑ trial detention in force at the time. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5   §   4. In view of that finding, it did not consider it necessary to examine whether the applicant had also been deprived of his right of access to a court in relation to his second appeal.   The Court awarded the applicant 1,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 815 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 5 § 4 Nedyalkov v. Bulgaria (no. 44241/98)         Violation of Article 6 § 1 Ivo Metodiev Nedyalkov is a Bulgarian national, aged 39, who lives in Sofia. He is the founder of a company known as East West International. When the value of the company’s shares fell sharply in 1994, thousands of small investors lost all their profits and the capital they had invested.   The applicant was placed under investigation on suspicion of having misappropriated several million dollars and was charged with misappropriation and misuse of the assets of East West International. Having left Bulgaria in 1994, he was arrested by the French police in Cannes on 20   August   1996. He was extradited to Bulgaria on 17 June 1997 and placed in pre ‑ trial detention.   The applicant lodged six appeals against his pre ‑ trial detention, arguing that there was no danger of his absconding and that the period of detention was excessive under the Convention. Five of the appeals were dismissed on the ground, among others, of the danger of the applicant’s absconding. On 24 February   1999 the Sofia City Court ordered the applicant’s release.   On 15 September 2004 the applicant was found guilty of fraud involving substantial sums of money and causing losses to over 5,000 people, making the offence a particularly serious one. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The proceedings are pending before the appellate courts.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that he had not been brought promptly before a judge following his arrest. He complained that his detention had been unlawful and excessive in length, and alleged that he had not had access to a judicial review of his detention. In addition, on the basis of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of the proceedings against him.   The Court reiterated that it had previously found, in cases concerning the system of pre-trial detention that had existed in Bulgaria until 1 January 2000, that investigating officers and public prosecutors could not be considered sufficiently independent and impartial for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to order or approve pre-trial detention. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 as regards the applicant’s right to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.   As to the length of the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention, the Court noted that it had lasted one year and eight months. As the national authorities had not given relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his continued detention, the Court also held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in respect of the length of the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention and the reasons given to justify it.   The Court also considered that by not examining, even cursorily, the arguments advanced by the applicant to support his appeal, the Sofia City Court had failed to provide a judicial review of the scope and nature required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.   The Court further noted that the Sofia City Court had refused to give a decision on an appeal in which the applicant had argued that the maximum period of detention had been exceeded, on the ground that it was for the public prosecutor, by virtue of his office, and not for the court to examine whether the time-limit had been complied with. The Court found that the applicant had not had access to a court to have his arguments heard and that the prosecutor who had eventually given a decision had manifestly not met the requirements of a “court” within the meaning of Article   5   § 4. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   As to the length of the proceedings, the Court noted that they had taken more than eight years and one month to date. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable ‑ time” requirement. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive Case   In the following case the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Kukalo v. Russia (no. 63995/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Mikhail Mikhaylovich Kukalo, is a Russian national, born in 1941 and who lives in Kurgan (Russia).   In February 1999 the applicant, whose health had been damaged after taking part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster, successfully challenged the amount of monthly compensation he had been granted. A number of judgments were delivered in his favour which in one case, took over two years and two months to enforce.   The applicant complained that prolonged non-execution of various final judgments in his favour was incompatible with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Concerning Article 6 § 1, the Court observed that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for long periods of time, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol N°   1 concerning the enforcement of certain judgments in his favour. It awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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.