CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 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 } .sF1456308 { width:307.29pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F5AEE96 { width:38.74pt; display:inline-block } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s5DBD879B { width:22.17pt; display:inline-block } .sB706842E { width:141.46pt; display:inline-block } .s40E856DB { width:343.57pt; 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   638 24.11.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Greece and   Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Repetitive cases (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.     Violations of Article 6 § 1 Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria (no. 49429/99) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicant was Capital Bank AD, a company in liquidation which had its registered office in Sofia (Bulgaria). The application was introduced on its behalf by Anguel Ivanov Parvanov and Mancho Markov Markov, chairman and vice ‑ chairman of its former board of directors. The application form was also signed by its three shareholders, First Financial AD, a company with its registered office in Sofia (Bulgaria), TOO Royal Flash, a company with its registered office in Moscow (Russia), and OOO Rontadent Trade, a company with its registered office in Tver (Russia).   The applicant bank was set up and acquired a banking licence in 1993. In November 1997 its licence was revoked by the Bulgarian National Bank (“the BNB”) which considered that it was insolvent. The BNB nominated special administrators to represent the bank until liquidators were appointed. Following a petition lodged by the BNB, the applicant bank was declared insolvent in January 1998 by the Sofia City Court, and put into liquidation.   The court held that, under the Banks Act of 1997, it had limited jurisdiction in proceedings concerning winding up an insolvent bank. In its view, once the BNB had found a bank insolvent, it could not revisit the issue and was bound to order its winding ‑ up. Subsequently the court appointed liquidators who represented the bank. They did not appeal. The prosecution authorities, however, did, arguing that the court had erred in not examining whether the applicant bank was in fact insolvent. In a final judgment of 30 June 1998 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld Sofia City Court’s judgment, with similar reasoning.   In April 2005 the proceedings to wind up the applicant bank were concluded and it was struck off the register of companies.   The applicant bank alleged that the courts deciding on the wind-up petition against it had not examined in substance whether it had in fact been insolvent, that the proceedings in which this issue had been decided had not been adversarial, and that the BNB’s decision to revoke its licence had not been made in accordance with the law. The applicant bank relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list, as the applicant bank no longer existed after April 2005.   The Court rejected the Government’s request, holding that striking an application out of the list in circumstances where the disappearance of the applicant legal person was the result of the alleged violations of the Convention would undermine the very essence of the right of individual applications by legal persons.   As regards the applicant bank’s first complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court found that the domestic courts’ acceptance of the BNB’s finding of insolvency, without subjecting it to any criticism or discussion, together with the fact that it was impossible to scrutinize this finding in direct review proceedings, amounted to a violation of that provision. The Court found a further violation of Article 6 § 1 in that, being represented by persons (the special administrators and later the liquidators) dependent on the other party to the proceedings (the BNB), the applicant bank was unable to properly defend its position and protect its interests.   The Court also came to the conclusion that the revoking of the applicant bank’s licence was not surrounded by sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness and was thus not lawful within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court unanimously rejected the Government’s request for the application to be struck out of the list and held that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that it was not necessary to rule on the allegation of a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). It awarded Mr Parvanov and Mr Markov 4,000 euros (EUR), jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.).   Katsoulis and Others v. Greece (application no 66742/01)   Just satisfaction The applicants are 39 Greek nationals. They were all involved in a long-standing dispute with the State concerning the ownership of a plot of land known as “Omorphokklisia” in Galatsi, a suburb of Athens, and a decision by the Ministry of Agriculture to reforest their land.   In a judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 the European Court of Human Rights found that no reasonable balance had been struck between the public interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicants’ rights and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the length of the proceedings and considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   In the judgment delivered today, the Court decided to strike out the case concerning Michail Tourasoglou, who had died in the meantime, and to award the other applicants 380,000 euros (EUR), jointly, in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Ouzounoglou v. Greece (no. 32730/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Stavroula Ouzounoglou, is a Greek national who was born in 1938 and lives in Igoumenitsa (Greece).   She used to own more than 3,600 m² of land, 1   076 m² of which was expropriated in 1997 to make way for a main road leading to Igoumenitsa port. Her house was not expropriated, but once the work was completed, the house stood at the intersection of four roads and 15 metres away from a suspension bridge. The authorities considered, in accordance with the presumption established by Law no.   653/1977, that the applicant should not receive any compensation for the expropriation of 1,011 m² because she should be deemed to have derived benefit from the construction of the road.   In August 1998 Thesprotia Court of First Instance acknowledged that, on account of the proximity of the suspended bridge, the applicant’s house had become unusable and awarded her approximately EUR 140,866   in special compensation as provided for in   Legislative Decree no. 797/1971. That amount was increased to EUR 152,605 by the Court of Appeal. However, on 30   June 2003 the Court of Cassation held that the applicant should not receive special compensation for the unexpropriated parts of her land because the depreciation in value of the unexpropriated part was not due to the expropriation but to the nature of the construction work.   At the end of a second set of proceedings for compensation, the court held that the unexpropriated parts of the property were not enhanced by the expropriation and awarded the applicant additional compensation of EUR 118,697.38.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained of not having obtained full compensation for the expropriation of her property. She also alleged a breach of Article 8 (right to respect for one’s home).   The Court noted that the part of the land on which the applicant’s house stood had not been expropriated, but that the works in question had restricted the free exercise of her right of user. Apart from the fact that the property now looked directly onto the new motorway, once it was opened to traffic the applicant would be inconvenienced by the noise pollution and constant vibration.   Furthermore, the Court found it contradictory that the courts dealing with the case had refused to apply the presumption under Law no.   653/1977, according to which the benefit derived from road improvements amounted to sufficient compensation, because the value of the house had depreciated as a result of the works carried out and yet had refused to award special compensation for that depreciation. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and considered that no separate issue arose under Article 8.   As the applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court decided not to award her a sum under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Proïos v. Greece (no. 35765/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Christos Proios, is a Greek national who was born in 1956 and lives in Salonika (Greece). He is a retired army officer.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him, leading to his conviction in 2003 for instigating the embezzlement of public funds and a five-month suspended prison sentence.   The Court declared the application admissible only in respect of the length of the proceedings. It noted that the proceedings had lasted nearly seven years, ten months and 16 days for three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that that period was excessive and did not meet the “reasonable-time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary loss. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive cases   Friendly settlement Enrico Cecere v. Italy (no. 70585/01) Paolo Cecere v. Italy (no. 68344/01) In these two cases the applicants complained of their protracted inability to recover possession of their flats, in the absence of police assistance, together with the length of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which EUR 10,000 is to be paid to each applicant for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. (The judgments are 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)   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.