CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 février 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3F1942F4 { width:128.78pt; display:inline-block } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .s37B5B224 { width:8.81pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s7319C020 { width:148.82pt; display:inline-block } .sCBAD24B7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt } .s95E15B89 { width:32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; 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   72 9.2.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Greece, Italy and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.                 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Athanasiou and Others v. Greece (application no. 2531/02)   The applicants, Xanthi Athanasiou, Eleni Athanasiou, Panayotis Pavlides and Marios Papalexis, are Greek nationals who owned plots of land in the village of Komnina Lokridos, on which they had built three villas.   In June 1997 the Ministers of Finance and Transport and Communications expropriated part of the applicants’ land on behalf of the Greek Railways Organisation (OSE) for the construction of a two-track railway line between Tithorea and Lianokladi, designed to carry high-speed trains at 20-minute intervals. A railway bridge was also built above the houses of Xanthi and Eleni Athanasiou and Mr Papalexis on the parts of their land that had not been expropriated. The remainder of the land belonging to the third and fourth applicants is now unsuitable for building on and the railway line passes less than five metres from the villas.   The applicants applied for special compensation in respect of the unexpropriated parts of their properties on account of the fall in their market value as a result of the works carried out. In a judgment of 13 June 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law on the ground that their properties had not depreciated in value.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about the decision refusing them compensation for the unexpropriated parts of their properties.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the parts of the land which the applicants claimed had depreciated in value had not been expropriated, but that the works in question had restricted their free exercise of the right to use the property. It was beyond dispute that the nature of the works carried out had contributed directly to a substantial fall in the value of the unexpropriated parts of the properties. The applicants would be inconvenienced by noise pollution and constant vibrations as a result of the construction work. Moreover, the view from the properties had been irreversibly obstructed and there could be no denying that the scope for making use of the parcel of land underneath the bridge, which was already unsuitable for building on as a result of the expropriation, had been severely reduced.   In refusing to award the applicants compensation for the depreciation of the unexpropriated part of their land, the Court of Cassation had upset the fair balance that needed to be struck between the protection of individual rights and the requirements of the general interest.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded 57,000 euros (EUR) to Xanthi Athanasiou, EUR 54,000 to Eleni Athanasiou, EUR 2,500 to Mr Pavlides and EUR 68,000 to Mr Papalexis’ widow in respect of pecuniary damage. It also awarded the applicants EUR 2,289 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive cases     Friendly settlements Comellini v. Italy (no. 15491/02) Otello de Luca v. Italy (no. 17644/03) In these two Italian cases, the applicants complained about their prolonged inability, in the absence of assistance from the police, to recover possession of their flats and about the length of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The cases were struck out of the list following friendly settlements in which EUR 10,000 was to be paid to Mr Comellini and EUR 9,905 to Mr Otello de Luca. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Prenna and Others v. Italy (no. 69907/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The four applicants, Italian nationals, used to own land in Macerata. The authorities took possession of the land with a view to expropriating it and began to carry out building work on it. Since no expropriation order had been issued and no compensation paid, the applicants brought proceedings seeking damages for the unlawful occupancy of their land.   The applicants alleged that the occupancy of their land had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the loss of all ability to dispose of their land, taken together 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 that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 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 judgment is available only in French.)               Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bogdanov v. Russia (no. 3504/02) Igusheva v. Russia (no. 36407/02) The applicants complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of court judgments given in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for years, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in both cases.   In the case of Bogdanov the Court held that the Government was to secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the award made by the domestic court. Mr Bogdanov did not make any claims for compensation. In the case of Igusheva the Court awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. She also complained that she had had no effective remedy under domestic law in respect of that complaint, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Barillon v. France (no. 22897/02)   Violation of Article 13 The Court awarded: -                       for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,000 -                       for costs and expenses: EUR 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. [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] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights.