CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 janvier 2006

.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 } .sF2D8F73C { width:10.09pt; display:inline-block } .sAD8E5983 { width:64.81pt; display:inline-block } .s691AA41A { width:2.11pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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   46 26.1.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Romania and   Greece   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   A length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.   Brugger v. Austria (application no 76293/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Matthias Brugger, is an Austrian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Austria.   From March 1992 the applicant made several requests to the Kärnten Regional Government for a permit under the Kärnten Environmental Protection Act to build a tool shed on his estate. The request was denied on the grounds, among others, that the shed would have an adverse effect on the character of landscape and would lead to urban sprawl. The regional government referred to two conflicting sets of expert opinions, official and private, submitted in the course of the proceedings.   The applicant complained to the Administrative Court that the Regional Government had not given sufficient reasons as to why it only focused on the findings of the official expert and that a new opinion should have been commissioned. He also requested that the court hold a hearing.   In March 2001 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint and his request for a hearing. The applicant subsequently removed the tool shed.   The applicant complained, in particular, about the Administrative Court’s refusal to hold an oral hearing. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that there were no exceptional circumstances which could have dispensed the national authorities with their obligation to hold a hearing as the subject matter of the case was not of an overly technical nature. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s further complaints under that article.   Mr Brugger was awarded 2,842.74 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Lungoci v. Romania (no. 62710/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   The applicant, Marina Elena Lungoci, is a Romanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bucharest. In 1947 her father entered into an agreement with the owners of a block of flats in Bucharest under the terms of which title to some of the flats would pass to him in return for his carrying out repairs to the building. In 1950 one of the flats was nationalised by the State while the remainder of the building was confiscated by the Communist Party.   In 1992 the applicant, acting as her father’s successor in title, brought an action to recover possession of the property. However, it was dismissed by the Romanian courts on the ground that she had failed to establish that she had title.   The applicant then brought an action for a declaration that the agreement her father had entered into in 1947 was valid. The court of first instance granted her a declaration on 28   March 1997. On the basis of that decision, in which it was recognised that she owned three of the flats, the applicant brought a second action for possession. However, that was dismissed by the Romanian courts on the grounds that the issue had already been determined in the previous proceedings.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that she had been deprived of her right of access to a court by the decision dismissing her second action for possession. She further complained of a violation, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection property), of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, .   The Court found that the fact that the applicant had been given access to a court solely for the purposes of seeing her action declared inadmissible under the law in force meant that she had been deprived of a clear, effective right of access to a court. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was unnecessary to examine the allegations of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court held unanimously that if the applicant so desired, Romania should ensure that the proceedings were reopened within six months from the date the Court’s judgment became final. It awarded the applicant EUR 5,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Tzaggaraki and Others v. Greece (no. 17965/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   The Court awarded:   For non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,000 (each), in other words EUR 66,000   For costs and expenses: EUR 1,500     ***   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.