CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 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 } .sA5306D02 { width:112.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; 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   625 17.11.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Italy and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final [1] .   Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Andrić v. Croatia (application no. 9707/02)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Dragoslav Andrić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Križevici (Croatia).   In February 1992 the applicant’s house in Bjelovar was blown up by unknown perpetrators. The applicant brought proceedings for damages against the State, which were stayed on 16   September 1999, under the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996.   The applicant complained that his right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and his right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 13, were violated as a consequence of the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 6,000 is to be paid for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Binotti v. Italy (no. 1) (no. 63632/00) Istituto Diocesano per il Sostentamento del Clero v. Italy (no. 62876/00) La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (no. 7) (no. 63241/00) Pia Gloria Serrilli and Others v. Italy (nos. 77823/01, 77827/01 and 77829/01) In these four cases the authorities took possession of land belonging to the applicants with a view to expropriating it and began to carry out building work on it. Since no expropriation order was issued and no compensation paid, the applicants brought proceedings seeking damages for the unlawful occupancy of their land.   The applicants submitted that the occupancy of their land had breached their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Ms Binotti also alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to a court).   The Court considered that the loss of all ability to dispose of the land, combined with the impossibility of remedying the situation, amounted to de facto expropriation, in breach of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It therefore held unanimously in each of the four cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further held that it was not necessary to examine separately Ms Binotti ’s complaint under Article 6 §   1. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and consequently reserved it. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bobrova v. Russia (no. 24654/03) Bratchikova v. Russia (no. 66462/01) Gerasimenko v. Russia (no. 24657/03) Ivannikova v. Russia (no. 24659/03) Kazartseva and Others v. Russia (no. 13995/02) Korchagina and Others v. Russia (no. 27295/03) Mikhaylova and Others v. Russia (no. 22534/02) Shestopalova and Others v. Russia (no. 39866/02) Suntsova v. Russia (no. 55687/00) Tolokonnikova v. Russia (no. 24651/03) Valentina Vasilyeva v. Russia (no. 7237/03) All the applicants are Russian nationals who live in Russia.   The applicants all complained about the failure to enforce various judgments awarding them welfare payments in arrears, due to lack of State funds.   They relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   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 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all 11 cases.   It considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in Bratchikova and Suntsova . Approximately EUR 14,010.60 was awarded to the others for pecuniary damage. Please see the judgments for details on individual cases. In the case of Shestopalova and Others EUR 500 was awarded for costs and expenses and EUR 20 was awarded to each of the other applicants. (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)   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. 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.