CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 mai 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 } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA8754BFF { width:3.96pt; 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   256 3.5.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment concerning Bulgaria   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final [1] . (The judgment is available only in French.)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Vasko Yordanov Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (application no 50401/99) The applicant, Vasko Yordanov Dimitrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   On 13 March 1989 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on charges of aggravated theft, committed as a member of a gang. He was convicted of the offences and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment by the Plovdiv regional court. The judgment was upheld on appeal. As the applicant did not appeal on points of law, his conviction became final on 15 January 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the impugned proceedings had lasted for seven years, four months and eight days. In the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period was excessive and did not meet the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court accordingly concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court further concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 in that, under Bulgarian law, the applicant had not had an effective remedy by which to seek redress for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 499 for costs and expenses.   ***   This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Contacts pour la presse     Emma Hellyer (téléphone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (téléphone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (téléphone : 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. [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.