CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 avril 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sE95971D4 { width:284.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s29EB854A { width:54.12pt; display:inline-block } .sEBFE7A95 { width:102.79pt; display:inline-block } .sAED139F3 { width:66.79pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s46B989D2 { width:87.79pt; display:inline-block } .s931E3192 { width:0.1pt; display:inline-block } .s18159C8E { width:81.11pt; display:inline-block } .s12067187 { width:84.21pt; display:inline-block } .s173A2DF0 { width:92.25pt; display:inline-block } .s524B03B6 { width:70.87pt; display:inline-block } .s438DA353 { width:36.87pt; display:inline-block } .sCE40E77 { width:80.21pt; display:inline-block } .sCD6295B5 { width:82.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF193FEC7 { width:92.91pt; display:inline-block } .s7A95854A { width:88.21pt; display:inline-block } .s7CE4E63E { width:92.22pt; display:inline-block } .s8D83B82F { width:88.89pt; display:inline-block } .s76E452A9 { width:56.21pt; display:inline-block } .s7027B48D { width:77.55pt; display:inline-block } .sE9B1371E { width:74.2pt; display:inline-block } .s27E6E106 { width:67.53pt; display:inline-block } .sFE1EA3B4 { width:82.9pt; display:inline-block } .s41CA9833 { width:82.22pt; display:inline-block } .sD410F462 { width:73.55pt; display:inline-block } .s691C3136 { width:82.87pt; display:inline-block } .sFA480071 { width:70.89pt; display:inline-block } .s24F4A46C { width:84.89pt; display:inline-block } .s68E4398C { width:62.19pt; display:inline-block } .s5979941F { width:76.89pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   200 6.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Poland and   Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 31 Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.       Two violations of Article 5 § 3   Two violations of Article 5 § 4   No violation of Article 6 § 2   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Rahbar-Pagard v. Bulgaria (application nos. 45466/99 and 29903/02) Violeta Simeonova Rahbar-Pagard and her daughter Claudia Halil Rahbar-Pagard, Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1961 and 1979 respectively, lived in Plovdiv (Bulgaria) at the material time. Violeta Simeonova Rahbar-Pagard died in 2002.   On 7 April 1990 Violeta Simeonova Rahbar-Pagard, while driving in Plovdiv town centre, caused a road accident in which two teenage girls died and four other youngsters were seriously injured. Prosecuted for manslaughter, she was released on bail. When she failed to appear in court, a warrant was issued for her arrest. The authorities were unable to find her.   In January 1993 Plovdiv Regional Court sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment for manslaughter caused by dangerous driving when under the influence of drink. Following her arrest in Germany in January 1995 she was extradited on 1 April 1996 and imprisoned in Sliven Prison.   Following a decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the case was referred back to the Regional Court for reconsideration of the merits. The applicant, who remained in prison, lodged four applications for release between July 1998 and July 1999. The courts denied her requests for release on the ground that she had failed to surrender to custody at the time of the first trial in 1990. On 17 August 1999 Violeta Simeonova Rahbar-Pagard was released but placed under house arrest.   On 5 October 1999 the applicant was convicted for manslaughter and unintentional injuries, caused when under the influence of drink, and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the count of driving when under the influence of drink was set aside and the prison sentence was reduced to four years and seven months, corresponding to the length of time she had already spent in prison.   Violeta Rahbar-Pagard brought an action in negligence against the State because of the delay in the examination of one of her applications for release. On 7 November 2001 Pazardjik Regional Court allowed her action and awarded her 1,220 Bulgarian levs (approximately 626.23 euros (EUR)) in compensation. She received part of that amount before her death and the balance was paid to her daughter.   Violeta Rahbar-Pagard alleged that her detention had been in breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. She also alleged that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   2 (presumption of innocence), in that the reasoning given by the Court of Appeal in refusing to grant her release from pre-trial detention had reflected the belief that she was guilty. Claudia Halil Rahbar-Pagard complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) about delays in the execution of a judgment in which her mother had been awarded compensation for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that it was only on 3 July 1998, when she had been held in pre-trial detention for some two months, that the Violeta Simeonova Rahbar-Pagard had appeared before a judge. Her right, after being taken into custody, to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power had thus been infringed. The Court accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   As to the length of her pre-trial detention, it had lasted for one year and five months. Considering that the Bulgarian authorities had failed to justify the continuation of the applicant’s detention by appropriate and sufficient reasons, the Court held, unanimously, that Article 5 § 3 had been violated also under that head.   As regards the right to judicial scrutiny of pre-trial detention, the Court considered that the refusal by the Court of Appeal to examine one of the applicant’s applications had entailed a breach of Article 5 § 4. The Court, moreover, found that there had been a second violation of Article 5 § 4 in view of the fact that the Bulgarian courts had taken 79 days to examine one of the applicant’s applications for release. In that connection, the Court considered that the compensation awarded to the applicant by the domestic courts in respect of the excessive length of those proceedings, had not, in view of the subsequent delay in payment, deprived the applicant of her victim status under Article 34.   The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 2.   The Court considered that the delay of about one year and eight months in the execution of the judgment awarding compensation to Violeta Rahbar-Pagard was not justified. It accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Moreover, the Court noted that by failing to comply with the judgment the authorities had deprived the applicants of compensation awarded by the court that they could reasonably have expected to receive and kept them in a situation of uncertainty. Consequently, the Court held, unanimously, that the delay in the execution of that judgment had also entailed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Lastly, the Court did not find it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13.   By way of just satisfaction the Court awarded Claudia Halil Rahbar-Pagard EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage in her capacity as heir, EUR 1,000 for the non-pecuniary damage that she had personally sustained, and EUR 1,867 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Stankiewicz v. Poland (no. 46917/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Janusz and Krystyna Stankiewicz, are Polish nationals who were born in 1948 and live in Rabka (Poland).   The applicants purchased a property from the State Treasury in 1992. In accordance with the Land Administration and Expropriation Act of 29 April 1985, the equivalent of the value of the property left by the applicants’ ancestors in the former eastern territories of Poland was counted towards the purchase price.   In August 1996 the Bolesławiec District Prosecutor brought an action against them on behalf of the State Treasury, claiming that the applicants had acted to the detriment of the State Treasury by inflating the value of the property they had left behind. The prosecutor claimed a sum of PLN 111,046 (approximately EUR 30,855) as an alleged loss of the State due to the erroneously calculated price.   In December 1997 Nowy Sącz Regional Court dismissed the prosecutor’s claim against the applicants. The court further ordered the State Treasury to reimburse to the applicants the costs of litigation they had borne in the proceedings.   The court referred to Article 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the costs of litigation are borne by the unsuccessful party to the proceedings, read together with Article 106 of that Code. The prosecuting authorities appealed.   In April 1998 Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal as regards the purchase price for the property but overturned the regional court’s decision to award the applicants their costs. As a result, the applicants had to bear costs to the amount of PLN 23,987.26 (approximately EUR 6,665) for the civil proceedings.   The applicants complained about the decision refusing to reimburse the costs they had borne in respect of a civil claim that the public prosecutor had unsuccessfully lodged against them. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that under Article 98 the party losing a civil case is normally obliged to reimburse the litigation costs to the successful party. However, the situation of the prosecutor in respect to the litigation costs in Polish civil procedure constitutes an exception from this principle.   Under Article 106, that principle is not applicable when the prosecutor participates in civil proceedings in his or her capacity of guardian of legal order.     The Court noted that the case-law of the Supreme Court made it possible for the courts to apply the Code of Civil Procedure in such a manner as to mitigate the privileged position of the prosecuting authorities in respect of the litigation costs, thus better taking into account the particularities of each individual case and the legitimate interests of an individual. The appellate court, however, overturned the decision in respect of costs simply because the opponents in the case were the prosecuting authorities, and despite the fact that the lower courts had found against the public prosecutor concerning the merits of the case.   The Court noted that from the outset the prosecuting authorities enjoyed a privileged position with respect to the costs of civil proceedings. In that connection, the Court also noted the applicants’ argument that the prosecuting authorities had in any event at their disposal legal expertise and ample financial means exceeding those available to any individual. While it was true that such a privilege might be justified for the protection of the legal order, the Court held that it should not be applied so as to put a party to civil proceedings to undue disadvantage vis-à-vis the prosecuting authorities.   The Court, having noted the complexity of the case and, also, the substantial amount of money involved in the case, was of the view the applicants’ decision to have professional legal representation could not be said to be unwarranted. It further found that the Government had not shown that that the legal fees incurred in the case   were inconsistent with   those practised at the time in cases of a similar character.       In those circumstances, the Court considered that the costs of professional legal assistance in the civil case were not incurred recklessly or without good justification.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 12, 828 (50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN)) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,283 (PLN 5,000) for costs and expenses. It found that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Mazzei v.Italy (no. 69502/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Bianca Lucia Mazzei and Francesco Edmondo Mazzei, are Italian nationals who were born in 1966 and 1963 respectively and live in Campagnano di Roma (Italy).   They complained of their prolonged inability to recover possession of their flat, owing to the lack of police assistance, and of 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 Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1. It awarded to each applicant EUR 320 for pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded EUR 2,000 to the applicants, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Chernitsyn v. Russia (no. 5964/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Ivan Petrovich Chernitsyn, is a Russian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Krasnodar (Russia).   In April 1997 Takhtamukayskiy District Court awarded the applicant compensation against his former employer. In August 2002 the judgment was quashed by the Supreme Court in supervisory review proceedings instigated by the acting President of the district court.   The applicant complained about the quashing of that judgment. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court).   The Court had already found a violation of an applicant’s right to access to a court in many cases in which a judicial decision that had become final and binding was subsequently quashed by a higher court on an application by a State official whose power to intervene was not subject to any time limit. The Court noted that there were no domestic remedies capable of remedying the impairment of the principle of legal certainty brought about by the use of supervisory review procedure and therefore found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   The applicants, in the following cases, all complained about the length of the proceedings to which they were a party and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of those proceedings. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13   Gavrielidou and Others v. Cyprus (no. 73802/01)     Chatzibyrros and Others v. Greece (no. 20898/03)     Bastič v. Slovenia (no. 75809/01)     Belošević v. Slovenia (no. 7877/02)     Bizjak Jagodič v. Slovenia (no. 42274/02)     Cekuta v. Slovenia (no. 77796/01)     Deželak v. Slovenia (no. 1438/02)     Divkovič v. Slovenia (no. 38523/02)     Drozg v. Slovenia (no. 5162/02)     Ferlič v. Slovenia (no. 77818/01)     Gaber v. Slovenia (no. 5059/02)     Gradič v. Slovenia (no. 9277/02)     Huseinović v. Slovenia (no. 75817/01)     Ibrahimi v. Slovenia (no. 75790/01     Jenko v. Slovenia (no. 4267/02)     Jurkošek v. Slovenia (no. 7883/02)     Klaneček v. Slovenia (no. 75798/01)     Kotnik v. Slovenia (no. 19894/02)     Krznar v. Slovenia (no. 75787/01)     Kukovič v. Slovenia (no. 20300/02)     Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33553/02)     Mrkonjič v. Slovenia (no. 17360/02)     Pažon v. Slovenia (no. 17337/02)     Prekoršek v. Slovenia (no. 75784/01)     Ramšak v. Slovenia (no. 16263/02)     Repas v. Slovenia (no. 10288/02)     Žlender v. Slovenia (no. 16281/02)         ***   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 ).   Press contacts 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)   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.