CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 13 juillet 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 } .sA306BFD7 { width:98.15pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sFE5139D8 { width:36.78pt; display:inline-block } .sAB3CDBE7 { width:242.22pt; display:inline-block } .sBC4BC80B { width:220.25pt; display:inline-block } .sF5A11B0D { width:62.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD0B8D6F9 { width:106.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA442093A { width:34.78pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sECB494D3 { width:174.13pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5BB6B4F { width:165.47pt; display:inline-block } .s38C4F4BD { width:181.5pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s37FB45CC { width:270.9pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s8C360175 { width:32.16pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sC082B88A { width:56.38%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s1138243D { width:23.02%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s82226DC3 { width:20.62%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE9CE0DA8 { width:56.38%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s25D77115 { width:23.02%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5062CC34 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:17.9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .sB5EDBBF1 { width:20.62%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEAC79953 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:19pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s8256E78A { height:14.3pt } .sC80E5FA6 { width:56.38%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s74FB21D3 { width:23.02%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7F3427B5 { width:20.62%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD00ABD47 { width:137.44pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   428 13.7.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 46 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments 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.     Allushi v. Greece (no. 3525/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Aleks Allushi, is an Albanian national who was born in 1964 and is currently serving a 19-year prison sentence at Patras Prison (Greece), following his conviction in 2003 for possessing and dealing in drugs.   He complained under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the length of the proceedings.   The Court noted that the proceedings, which were still pending on appeal, had lasted more than three years and eleven months for one level of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that period excessive and in breach of the “reasonable-time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,500   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Housing Association of War Disabled and Victims of War of Attica and Others v. Greece (no. 35859/02) The applicants are a housing association with legal personality under Greek law, set up in 1951 and 157 of its members.   In 1964 the State bought the land belonging to the applicants and exchanged it with 100,000 sq. m of land in the Korakovouni area. According to the applicants, the understanding was that the association would be allowed to develop the land after the State had issued the appropriate changes to the local planning regulations. The area which was public woodland, initially fell outside the boundaries of the urban development plan but was later included, by Royal Decree, in a revised plan in May 1966. In 1974 the Minister of Agriculture issued a licence for building roads and cutting down trees in order to implement the new town plan.     In 1975 the new Constitution introduced new rules for the protection of the environment and in April 1988 the 1966 Royal Decree, in so far as it extended the urban development plan to the association’s land, was abolished. In April 1990 the Supreme Administrative Court, in response to the members appeal, placed a prohibition on building houses on the land.   The applicants brought further proceedings claiming compensation for the deprivation of their right to use their property. They claimed that by refusing to exchange their land for new land of equal value, or to expropriate it, the State had violated Articles 17 of the 1975 Constitution and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   In a judgment of 4 October 2001, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed their application, holding that, “by providing for the possibility of expropriating or exchanging woodland which cannot become a residential area, Section 50 § 3 presupposes that the urban development of woodland is in principle lawful, something which is contrary to Article 24 of the 1975 Constitution”.   The applicants complained about an interference with their property rights. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the legitimate concern to protect the forests, did not absolve the State of its responsibility to provide adequate protection for individuals, such as the applicants, who were the rightful owners of their property.   It was particularly struck by the fact that, although the very substance of the applicants’ ownership was affected, they could not obtain compensation under Greek law. That fact, combined with the State’s refusal to expropriate the applicants’ property or to exchange it for new land of equal value, left them in a worse state of affairs and placed a disproportionate burden on them.   The Court therefore concluded that a reasonable balance had not been struck between the public interest and the protection of the applicants’ rights and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It reserved the application of Article 41 for a later date. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Zacharakis v. Greece (no. 17305/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Emmanuel Zacharakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1936.     In 1970 a piece of land measuring almost 600,000 square metres in Tourkovounia (Athens) was expropriated to allow a church to be built. An amount by way of provisional compensation for expropriation was assessed. The applicant's father brought an action for a declaration that he was the joint owner of part of the land and therefore entitled to a corresponding share of the compensation. In June 1991 he was declared the joint owner with the Greek Navy Fund of 36% of 97,610 sq. m. of the expropriated land with an entitlement to a corresponding share of the compensation. In his capacity as his father's heir, the applicant sought a reassessment of the provisional award of 1970 updated to reflect the current value of the land. On 5 December 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed his application on the grounds that the compensation had to reflect the value of the land at the time the provisional compensation was assessed.   The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the Greek courts’ refusal to update the 1970 assessment.   The Court said that it could not decide in lieu of the Greek courts the year that should have been taken into consideration for the estimation of the value of the expropriated land and assessment of the sums due. The issue before it was whether the refusal to update the 1970 award to take into account the period (more than 30 years) up to the final assessment was founded. In that connection, the Court noted that abnormally lengthy delays in the payment of compensation for expropriation led to increased financial losses for the person whose land had been expropriated, putting him or her in a position of uncertainty especially when monetary depreciation over such a lengthy period was taken into account. The applicant had thus sustained separate loss in addition to that caused by the expropriation of his land.     The failure to reassess the compensation award to take into account the depreciation caused by the lengthy gap between the provisional assessment and the final assessment had upset the fair balance that had to be struck between the requirements of the general interest of the community and the need to safeguard the fundamental rights of individuals. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 40,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 SC Magna Holding SRL v. Romania (no. 10055/03) The applicant, SC Magna Holding SRL, is a Romanian company whose registered office is in Ploieşti (Romania).   On 27 July 2001 the Prahova County Court made an order for specific performance in favour of the applicant company against another company, M., requiring the latter to negotiate and enter into an agreement for the sale of immovable property and to pay penalties in the event of delay. When the negotiations broke down, the applicant company sought to enforce the order of 27 July 2001 and to obtain payment of the penalties. The section of the order concerning the sale agreement has yet to be executed.   The applicant company complained of the failure to execute the order of 27 July 2001 and of a violation of its right of property on account of the authorities’ refusal to assist it in obtaining the defendant company's signature to the sale agreement. It relied on Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the Romanian authorities had made every effort to execute the judgment; in particular, the courts had advised the applicant company of the procedure both for securing the defendant company’s compliance and for transforming the initial obligation into an obligation to pay damages. Noting that the authorities had complied with the obligation to ensure effective access to a court and to give the applicant company a fair hearing, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. It further noted that the case concerned a property dispute between two private litigants which did not, in principle, engage the State’s responsibility. It added that the provisional nature of the order to pay penalties meant that they could not constitute “possessions”. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dubinskaya v. Russia (no. 4856/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Galina Ruvimovna Dubinskaya, is an Israeli and Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Tel-Aviv.   In May 1995 the applicant, who had been severely injured in a traffic accident in Moscow brought a civil action against the car owner and driver seeking compensation for damage.   In October 1995 the Chertanovskiy District Court, in an interim decision which was submitted to the Moscow Bureau for forensic medical examinations, ordered a medical examination of the applicant.   According to the Government, the District Court repeatedly asked the applicant’s lawyer to produce additional medical information requested by the Bureau. In the absence of any reply, the court discontinued the proceedings. The applicant maintained that neither she nor her lawyer had received such requests and that they had not been informed that the court had closed the proceedings.   In 2002 the applicant was informed that due to the failure to present the additional medical information the applicant’s claim was never registered and no medical examination was ever carried out.   The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings relying on Article 6 § 1 (access to court).   The Court noted that the applicant had never obtained a judgment on the merits, and contrary to the Government’s assertion found that it was unreasonable to expect her to re-submit her action more than 13 years after the circumstances that had given rise to that claim had occurred.   The Court held unanimously hat there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to examine the applicant’s civil claim and awarded Ms   Dubinskaya EUR 5,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Fuscher v. Switzerland (no. 55894/00)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Andreas Fuchser, is a Swiss national who was born in 1964 and lives in Meiringen (Switzerland).   In 1998 the applicant was sentenced by the Zurich District Court to eight months’ imprisonment for various offences including theft. However, in the light of expert psychiatric evidence, the District Court suspended the sentence and ordered the applicant to obtain treatment as an outpatient. However, in 1992 he was admitted to hospital as an inpatient and subsequently held in the security wing following an assault on a nurse.   On 24 June 1997 the applicant applied for release. On 30 October 1997 the Zurich District Court granted his application and brought his compulsory admission to an end with effect from 14 November 1997.   The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily) that the Swiss authorities had not dealt with his request for release speedily.   The Court noted that the Zurich District Court had taken four months and six days to decide the applicant’s application for release. Noting that the main delays could not be attributed to the complexity of the case, the requirements of the domestic proceedings or the applicant’s conduct, it found no reasons that would have justified the delay in deciding the application for release. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.(The judgment is available only in French.)   Ressegatti v. Switzerland (no. 17671/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants are the heirs of Alice Ressegatti-Müller: her husband, Angelo Goffredo Ressegatti, and their sons, Angelo Josef Ressegatti, Bruno Hans Ressegatti and Reto Franziskus Ressegatti, who are all Swiss nationals and were born in 1924, 1955, 1957 and 1959, and live in Bäch, Zurich, Wil and Gravesano respectively.   In 1997 Alice Ressegatti-Müller brought an action against H.T. for a share in profits made from the exploitation of a sailing resort. The tribunals of fact dismissed her claim.   She then appealed to the Federal Court on points of law and in the course of those proceedings sought permission to reply to submissions that had been lodged by H.T. In August 2001 the Federal Court dismissed her appeal as being ill-founded.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained that Alice Ressegatti-Müller had not been given an opportunity to reply to H.T.’s submissions.   The Court noted that Alice Ressegatti-Müller had not been afforded an opportunity to reply to her opponent’s submissions, as the Federal Court had taken the view that they did not contain any new evidence or information of significance to the case.   The right to a fair trial, and in particular the rule concerning equality of arms, required that a party to proceedings should be given the chance to comment on the observations of his or her opponent. The Court therefore held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, and unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It awarded them EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Doğan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 8803-8811, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02) Just satisfaction The applicants are fifteen Turkish nationals.   The applicants alleged that in October 1994 State security forces had evicted them from their village and destroyed their property.   In a judgment delivered on 29 June 2004, the Court held that there had been a violation of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) and invited the Government and the applicants to submit their written observations.   Meanwhile the Turkish authorities took several measures, including enacting the Compensation Law of 27 July 2004, to redress the grievances of those denied access to their possessions in their villages. The Court examined the implementation of the compensation law in a “test case” and ruled that the Government had reviewed the systemic problem and provided an effective remedy. The Court accordingly rejected almost 1,500 similar applications under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.   The Court held unanimously that the principal judgment in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage arising from the violations cited above and awarded the applicants a total of EUR 267,500 (sums ranging from EUR   14,500   to EUR   19,900) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 21,906 (less EUR   2,910.60 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   İmrek v. Turkey (no. 57175/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Ender İmrek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Malatya (Turkey).   In April 1998 the Elaziğ provincial branch of the Party of Labour ( Emeğin Partisi ) organised a meeting at which the applicant gave a speech in his capacity as a member of the Party’s management committee.   On 28 September 1999 the Malatya State Security Court found the applicant guilty of incitement to hatred and hostility and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and a fine. His conviction and sentenced were upheld by the Court of Cassation.   The applicant alleged that his conviction for making a speech at a meeting had violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of procedural unfairness in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation on account of a failure to communicate the opinion of the principal public prosecutor.   The case was struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicant was to receive EUR 3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Okatan v. Turkey (no. 40996/98)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Mehmet Okatan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976. At the time of the events, he was held at Bandırma Prison (Turkey).   In November 1995 the applicant was fired upon by a police patrol when sitting in a vehicle. Although wounded, he was able to escape. He was arrested shortly afterwards while in possession of false documents and taken to Vatan Hospital. He was accused of being a member of an armed fundamentalist organisation known as İslami Hareket Örgütü . On 24 July 2000 a state security court sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment for membership of an armed gang. The applicant lodged complaints under Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial).   The case was struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicant was to receive EUR 6,000. (The judgment is available only in French.)   S.S. and M.Y. v. Turkey (no. 37951/97)   Struck out The applicants S.S. and M.Y., are Turkish nationals who were born in 1941 and 1952, respectively, and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   The applicants lived at Ağartı in the district of Hazro (Diyarbakır province). This province was within the area of south-east Turkey covered by the state of emergency which was decreed in 1987 following serious disturbances in the region between the security forces and the members of the illegal PKK organisation. The events and clashes that took place in the region affected many villages, including some in Diyarbakır Province. Houses were burnt or destroyed and some villages were abandoned by their inhabitants.   The facts of the case are disputed.   The applicants alleged that in 1993 and 1994 they and the other inhabitants of Ağartı were forced by gendarmes to evacuate the village. The security forces had then proceeded to set their houses on fire. The Government denied these allegations and maintained that the villagers had decided to evacuate the village themselves because of concerns over security following threats by the PKK; the houses had been destroyed as a result of the winter conditions and a lack of regular maintenance.   The applicants alleged that their forcible eviction and the authorities’ refusal to allow them to return to their village and land constituted a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). They also complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had had no remedy to enable them to air their complaints.   The Court observed that it was possible under the Compensation Act of 27 July 2004 for persons such as the applicants to apply up until 3 January 2007 to compensation boards for reparation for damage sustained as a result of forcible eviction, the destruction of their properties or their inability to regain access to them. The applicants had not, however, used that remedy.   Noting that there were no circumstances that would have exempted the applicants from the obligation to exhaust that remedy, the Court held that their complaints under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had to be rejected pursuant to Article 35 (conditions of admissibility).   Further, since the Compensation Act afforded the applicants an effective remedy which they could use to complain about the destruction of their properties and their inability to return to them, the Court found that the complaint under Article 13 was manifestly ill-founded and had to be dismissed under Article 35. (The judgment is available only in French.)   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 6 § 1 (fairness) Farange S.A. v. France (application no. 77575/01) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Farange S.A., is a French company based in Ajaccio (Corsica).     On 14 October 1992 it applied for compensation from the Corsican Territorial Authority, alleging that it had thwarted its plans to build a complex on land situated near the Grand Hotel in Ajaccio. The proceedings ended with a judgment of the Conseil d’État which was served on the company on 30 August 2001.   The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the proceedings and of procedural unfairness.   Citing its case-law, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1 as regards the applicant company’s complaint that it had not received, and had therefore not been able to reply to, the Government Commissioner’s submissions prior to the hearing. It did, however, unanimously find a violation of that provision on account of the Government Commissioner’s presence at the deliberations of the Conseil d’État .   As to the length of the proceedings, the Court noted that they had lasted more than eight years and ten months for a procedure comprising a preliminary application and three levels of jurisdiction. It found that period to be excessive in the circumstances of the case and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a breach of the “reasonable-time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   It awarded the applicant company EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Lo Bue and Others v. Italy (no. 12912/04) Zaffuto and Others v. Italy (no. 12894/04) In these two cases, the authorities had occupied land belonging to the applicants, who are all Italian, with a view to expropriation and had commenced building works. In the absence of any formal expropriation proceedings or the payment of compensation, the applicants issued proceedings for damages for the unlawful occupation of their land.   They alleged that the occupation of their land had violated their rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right of property).   The Court found that the loss of enjoyment of the land, coupled with the inability to remedy the situation, amounted to de facto expropriation that was incompatible with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It therefore held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The question of the applicability of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was reserved, as it was not ready for decision.     Violation of Article 8 (family life)   Violation of Article 13 Vincenzo Taiani v. Italy (no. 3638/02)   Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Vincenzo Taiani, is an Italian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Benevento (Italy).   He was declared bankrupt in March 1996.   He complained under Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) that the various incapacities to which he was subject as a result of his bankruptcy had infringed his right to respect for his correspondence and that he had no remedy in Italian law in respect thereof. He also complained under Article 3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections) of the restrictions on his electoral rights.   The Court found that there had been a violation of the Convention as a result of the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life caused by the application of section 50 of the Bankruptcy Act, both because the bankrupt’s name was automatically entered in the bankruptcy register and because there was no judicial scrutiny or review of the rehabilitation period or of the effect of the incapacities. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Lastly, as regards the interference with the applicant’s electoral rights, the Court found that the sole purpose of the measure, whose statutory basis was to be found in Article 2 of Presidential Decree no. 223 of 20 March 1967, was to demean the bankrupt and to express moral condemnation solely as a result of his or her insolvency, independently of any blame. The interference did not, therefore, pursue a legitimate aim. The Court added that far from being a privilege, voting was a right guaranteed by the Convention. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Grigoryeva v. Russia (no. 21419/04) Kovalenko v. Russia (no. 21410/04) Matrena Polupanova v Russia (no. 21447/04) Shamina v. Russia (no. 70501/01) Shiryayeva v. Russia (no. 21417/04) Terekhova v. Russia (no. 21425/04) Vasilyeva v. Russia (no. 21430/04)   The applicants are all Russian nationals.   The applicants complained about the lengthy failure to enforce judgments awarding them pension arrears. They relied on Article   6 §   1 (access to court) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   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. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. and awarded the applicants the following sums expressed in euros (converted from Russian roubles, where necessary). (The judgments are available only in English.)       Pecuniary damage Non-Pecuniary damage Grigoryeva v. Russia (no. 21419/04) 214 2,700 Kovalenko v. Russia (no. 21410/04) 209 2,700 Matrena Polupanova v Russia (no. 21447/04) 214 2,400 Shamina v. Russia (no. 70501/01) 157 2,700 Shiryayeva v. Russia (no. 21417/04) 173 2,400 Terekhova v. Russia (no. 21425/04) 209 2,700 Vasilyeva v. Russia (no. 21430/04) 214 2,700       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Vasylyev v. Ukraine (no. 10232/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Anatoliy Fedorovych Vasylyev, is a Ukrainian national who lives in Vinnytsa (Ukraine).   “The applicant complained about the lengthy failure to enforce a judgment in his favour for recovery of salary arrears due to the fact that the debtor (a State authority) had ceased to exist as a legal person.”. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced five years and four months, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, therefore, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court further found that there was no effective remedy available to redress the damage created by the delay in the enforcement of the judgement in question which was caused by the authorities’ failure to take the necessary legislative or budgetary measures. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 13.   The Court considered that the Government should pay Mr   Vasylyev the outstanding debt in settlement of his pecuniary damage and awarded him EUR   1,600 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Stork v. Germany (no. 38033/02) Kortessi v. Greece (no. 31259/04) Lazaridi v. Greece (no. 31282/04) Nikas and Nika v. Greece (no. 31273/04) Nichifor v. Romania (No. 1) (no. 62276/00) Silin v. Ukraine (no. 23926/02)   The applicants in the following cases 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 Galatalis v. Greece (no. 36251/03) Beriša v. Slovenia (no. 1459/01) Blagojevič v. Slovenia (no. 77809/01) Boškič v. Slovenia (no. 5158/02) Falnoga v. Slovenia (no. 5110/02) Grenko v. Slovenia (no. 29891/02 Guzej v. Slovenia (no. 14619/02) Kristan v. Slovenia (no. 77778/01) Kuzmin v. Slovenia (no. 8756/02) Lušničkič v. Slovenia (no. 5186/02) Obrovnik v. Slovenia (no. 76438/01) Podjaveršek v. Slovenia (no. 5176/02) Radojčič v. Slovenia (no. 4562/02) Radakovič v. Slovenia (no. 20290/02) Svetlin v. Slovenia (no. 10299/02) Zupanc v. Slovenia (no. 1411/02) Bahçeyaka v. Turkey (no. 74463/01)   ***   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.