CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 1 juin 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sAEA7FD71 { width:237.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sAC5E8321 { width:260.83pt; display:inline-block } .s817FF104 { width:264.17pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   319 1.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Russia, Slovenia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 39 Chamber judgments, none of which are 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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)    Violation of Article 13 Buj v. Croatia (application no 24661/02)     The applicant, Vinko Buj, is a Croatian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Jelsa (Croatia).   On 1 May 1994 the applicant’s mother died and inheritance proceedings were started. On 8 June 1999 in a decision issued by Stari Grad Municipal Court, the property was distributed between the applicant and his brother. Ownership of the property was to be registered after the decision became final. An appeal lodged by the applicant’s brother was declared inadmissible and was served on the applicant’s representative in May 2002. The applicant’s ownership of the inherited property has to date not been recorded in the land register.   The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in relation to that grievance. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (length of civil proceedings), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He further alleged that the length of proceedings had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The Government claimed that the lengthy period of time necessary for the registration of the applicant’s ownership in the land register was a systemic problem in Croatia and that the system was currently undergoing reform.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the enforcement of the decision given in the inheritance proceedings, in the form of registration of property in the applicant’s name, had been pending for more than four years, without a single decision to that end. Having regard to its previous case-law on the subject, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings was excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of a remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have complained about the excessive length of the land registry proceedings and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Having regard to its finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1, the Court also held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant was awarded 2,400   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 Fodale v. Italy (no. 70148/01)   The applicant, Carmelo Fodale, is an Italian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Trapani (Italy).   On an unspecified date he was placed under investigation on charges of attempted extortion, attempted arson, arson and being a member of a Mafia-type organisation based in Sicily.   By an order of 12 July 1999, the Palermo investigating judge remanded him in custody. That order was set aside on an appeal by the applicant. The public prosecutor appealed to the Court of Cassation.   The Court of Cassation set the appeal down for hearing on 15 February 2000. However, no summons was served on the applicant or his lawyer. The Court of Cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and remitted the case to the division of the Palermo Court responsible for reviewing precautionary measures.   On the day of the hearing, the applicant’s counsel requested permission to adduce further evidence. He also argued that the judgment of 15 February 2000 was null and void as he had not been informed of the date of the hearing.   The division of the Palermo Court gave leave to the defence to adduce the new evidence but rejected the argument that the judgment of 15 February 2000 was null and void.   On 13 April 2000 the division of the Palermo Court upheld the investigating judge's decision of 12 July 1999 as regards two of the charges and set aside the remainder of the decision. The applicant was then arrested and detained pending trial. He appealed to the Court of Cassation, but his appeal was dismissed.   In the meantime, the applicant was acquitted.   The applicant complained of procedural unfairness in the proceedings to review the lawfulness of his detention. He alleged that he had not been informed of the date of the hearing before the Court of Cassation and complained of the decision to dismiss his application for an order setting aside the judgment of 15 February 2000. He relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court said that it was unable to accept the Government's argument that Article 5 § 4 did not apply to the proceedings before the Court of Cassation because the applicant was not in custody when they commenced. The Court noted that by applying to have the order of 2 August 1999 set aside, the public prosecutor had effectively sought to restore the order remanding the applicant in custody, so that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been decisive of the issue of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention.   The Court noted that the Court of Cassation had set the public prosecutor's appeal down for hearing on 15 February 2000, but that no summons had been served on the applicant or his lawyer. The applicant had therefore been denied the possibility of lodging pleadings or making oral submissions at the hearing in reply to be prosecution’s arguments. Conversely, the prosecution had been represented before the Court of Cassation. In those circumstances, the Court could not find that the requirements of adversarial process and equality of arms had been complied with.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and that the finding of a violation afforded in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded the applicant 5,000 euros for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 Bednov v. Russia (no. 21153/02)   The applicant, Vladimir Vladimirovich Bednov, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Krivoborye (Russia).   On 25 July 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and was subsequently detained on remand. He complained about the unlawfulness of his detention and made applications for release pending trial. His complaints and applications were continually transferred from one jurisdiction to another and, as a consequence, were never examined by a court. In October 2001 Liskinskiy District Court convicted him of theft and he was imprisoned.   The applicant complained about the fact that his complaints and applications were never examined by the domestic courts. He relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court found that the domestic courts failed to establish which court had jurisdiction to review the applicant’s detention. Consequently it concluded that the applicant was denied the right to a judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. The applicant was awarded EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment)    Violation of Article 5 § 3    Two violations of Article 5 § 4 Mamedova v. Russia (no. 7064/05)   The applicant, Olga Vagidovna Mamedova, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Vladimir (Russia).   On 23 July 2004 the applicant was arrested and charged with large-scale fraud and was later detained on remand. She appealed.   On 10   August 2004 Vladmir Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal concerning the detention order. It found that the lower court had correctly assessed her “character” and other materials presented by the prosecutor. The appeal hearing was attended by a prosecutor and counsel for the applicant, but not the applicant herself, despite her request to that effect.   The courts ordered her continued detention several times relying each time on the gravity of the charges, the risk she might abscond, obstruct the course of justice or re-offend. She was eventually released on 4 August 2005.   In her appeals for release she alleged that she was detained in inhuman conditions. Although some of those conditions were in dispute among the parties, they did agree, in principle, that the cells in facility no. IZ-33/1 in the Vladimir region where she was kept were overpopulated. In some of the cells inmates were afforded less than 2 m² of personal space. The applicant was confined to her cell day and night, save for one hour of daily outdoor exercise.   The applicant complained that she was held in over-crowded unsanitary conditions and about the length and reasons given for her detention. Furthermore, she complained that she had not been permitted to take part in the appeal hearing of 10   August 2004. She relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court recalled that it was incumbent on the Russian Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way that ensured respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties. In the Court’s view, the fact that the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse in her the feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing her. It held unanimously therefore that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of her detention.   The Court stressed that it was the responsibility of the prosecutors to collect evidence and conduct the investigation in such a way that it ensured the applicant’s trial within a reasonable time. The Court considered that by failing to address concrete facts or consider alternative “preventive measures” and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the authorities prolonged the applicant’s detention for more than a year on grounds which could not be regarded as “relevant and sufficient”. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court found that the hearing held on 10 August 2004 – which was to examine the arguments for her detention – was important and required her attendance. This was particularly true given the appeal court’s reliance on the applicant’s character, and her intention to ask for her release on account of the conditions of her detention. The Court therefore considered that the refusal of the request for leave to appear at the hearing deprived the applicant of an effective control of the lawfulness of her detention. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court further noted that it took the domestic courts over 29 days to examine each of the appeals against the detention orders lodged by the applicant. The Court considered that those periods could not be considered compatible with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities. The Court held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 4 in that respect.   The applicant was awarded EUR 16,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Fedorenko v. Ukraine (no. 25921/02)   The applicant, Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Malaya Vyska (Ukraine).   In April 1997 the applicant sold his house to the Kirovograd Regional Department of Justice. The Department was represented in the transaction by Mr R., the President of the Malaya Vyska City Court. The house was to be paid for in two instalments. A clause in the contract stipulated that should the exchange rate of the Hryvna depreciate the overall sum to be paid could not be less than the Hryvna equivalent of USD 17,000.   By the time the applicant was paid the second set of instalments, the Hryvna had substantially weakened against US dollar. He instituted proceedings against the Department, claiming that it had failed to fulfil its obligations under the contract, as the sum paid did not take into account the substantial depreciation of the exchange rate of the Hryvna. The Department lodged a counterclaim seeking the annulment of the contract on the ground that Mr R. had exceeded his powers in agreeing to the dollar value clause.   A judgment in favour of the applicant before Kirovsky District Court of Kirovograd was overturned by Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal. The court noted that Mr R. had acted ultra vires by conceding the inclusion of the disputed provision in the contract without the prior consent from the Department. It further stated that, according to Ukrainian law the Hryvna was the only currency which could be used for internal transactions. The Court of Appeal found it appropriate to award him a small sum for late payment of the debt. The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.   The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that he had been deprived of the benefit of a contractual safeguard against inflation, linking the price of his house to an amount in US dollars.   The Court noted that since Mr R. himself, being a judge, considered that he had had the power to sign the contract as agreed, it did not appear unreasonable that the applicant entertained the same belief. He sought to link his future benefits to a hard currency to mitigate the risks involved in commercial transactions during the economic turmoil experienced by Ukraine in the late 1990s. This condition was thus an important part of the contract for the applicant, who otherwise would probably have had serious reservations about the sale.   The Court was also struck by the fact that the Department sought the annulment of the whole contract before the domestic courts. However, the Court of Appeal, having found the impugned clause to be unlawful, did not invalidate the whole contract, which would have required the restoration of the parties to their original situation. Instead, it greatly decreased the applicant’s gains from the transaction simply by finding that the amount already paid constituted sufficient compliance with the Department’s contractual obligations.   Having regard to those considerations, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,890 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 for costs and expenses. (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    Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ciucci v. Italy (no. 68345/01) Magherini v. Italy (no. 69143/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Mosconi v. Italy (no. 68011/01)   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants in these three cases complained that they were unable to recover possession of their flats, owing to the lack of police assistance. The applicants in Ciucci and Magherini also complained under Article 6 § 1 (length of civil proceedings) of the length of the enforcement proceedings.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all three cases and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in the Ciucci and Magherini cases.   The Court awarded EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses to each of the applicants in the Magherini case, and EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses to the applicant in the Mosconi case. No award was made to the applicant in the Ciucci case, no claim for just satisfaction having been submitted within the time prescribed. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gridin v. Russia (no. 4171/04) Korchagin v. Russia (no. 19798/04) Shatunov v. Russia (no. 31271/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1    Violation of Article 13 Astankov v. Ukraine (no. 5631/03)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kryachkov v. Ukraine (no. 7497/02) Sinko v. Ukraine (no. 4504/04)   All the applicants in the above cases complained that the prolonged non-enforcement of judgments in their favour had violated their right to a court under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Mr Astankov and the applicants in the Russian cases also complained about their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Mr Astankov further relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicants’ other complaints were declared inadmissible.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in all of the cases, a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all the Russian cases and the case of Mr Astankov and also a violation of Article 13, in the case of Mr Astankov.   For non pecuniary damage it awarded EUR 1,800 to Mr Gridin, EUR 1,200 to Mr Korchagin and EUR 3,000 to Mr Shatunov, EUR 800 to Mr Astankov and Mr Kryachkov and EUR 810 to Mr Sinko. It also awarded EUR 20 to Mr Gridin for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). The applicants’ other complaints in the cases of Dulskiy , Majski and Kutsenko were declared inadmissible.   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Antolič v. Slovenia (no. 71476/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Stojić v. Croatia (no. 36719/03) Majski v. Croatia (no. 33593/03) Kutsenko v. Russia (no. 12049/02) Keržina-Kukovec v. Slovenia (no. 75574/01) Dulskiy v. Ukraine (no. 61679/00)   In the following cases the applicants further complained of a lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints about the excessive length of proceedings. They relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)    Violation of Article 13 Omerović v. Croatia (no. 36071/03) Gavrielides v. Cyprus (no. 15940/02) Athanasiou v. Greece (no. 10691/04) Tsiotras v. Greece (no. 13464/04) Atelšek v. Slovenia (no. 26342/04) Bendič v. Slovenia (no. 77519/01) Boškovič v. Slovenia (no. 21462/04) Irgolič v. Slovenia (no. 42857/02) Jelen v. Slovenia (no. 5044/02) Mežan v. Slovenia (no. 27102/02) Mijatovič v. Slovenia (no. 43548/02) Mušič v. Slovenia (no. 37294/02) Nahtigal v. Slovenia (no. 75777/01) Rožič v. Slovenia (no. 75779//01) Stakne v. Slovenia (no. 77543/01) Trebovc v. Slovenia (no. 42863/02) Urbanija v. Slovenia (no. 6552/02) Vodeb v. Slovenia (no. 42281/02) Vrbanec v. Slovenia (no. 33549/02)   ***   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. [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.