CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 12 octobre 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 } .sDAFBD1BB { width:4.78pt; display:inline-block } .sD81182C { width:62.1pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s67C55EFB { width:58.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s78D3B4C7 { width:68.17pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA79637C0 { width:264.85pt; display:inline-block } .sAF4F65D7 { width:100.88%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s3260263B { height:27.4pt } .sE4AE3500 { width:52.06%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s69675CB1 { width:16.44%; 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; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s4DC8A21A { width:15.06%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s268BE78A { height:13.7pt } .s58CB074E { width:52.06%; 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; vertical-align:top } .sD55B5934 { width:16.44%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s84B650CF { width:15.06%; 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; vertical-align:top } .sE099AA7A { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s172CB0A7 { height:14.45pt } .sF832B525 { width:52.06%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s1895CE8 { width:16.44%; 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; vertical-align:top } .s86251B5C { width:15.06%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s34BDFF91 { width:36.18pt; display:inline-block } .sE4FC1787 { width:135.47pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sF5911048 { width:40.13pt; display:inline-block } .sC87A7B6F { width:94.82pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s2A785D6B { width:147.47pt; 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   583 12.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Romania, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 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.   Mladenov v. Bulgaria (application no. 58775/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Vercho Vasilev Mladenov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia.   On 12 June 1991 he was made the subject of a criminal investigation and remanded in custody on suspicion of having sexually interfered with a ten-year-old child. In February 1999 he was found guilty and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment. The proceedings ended on 14 December 1999 with his appeal on points of law being dismissed.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained in particular of the length of the proceedings against him.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings had lasted nearly eight years and six months, of which only about seven years and three months could be taken into account since the Convention had come into force in respect of Bulgaria on 7 September 1992. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it found that the length was excessive and did not meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 800   euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Tastanidis v. Greece (no. 18059/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Vassilios Tastanidis, is a Greek national who was born in 1958 and lives in Salamina, Greece.   In May 2001 he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for tax fraud. After his sentence was upheld on appeal, the applicant appealed on points of law. On 20 January 2004 the Court of Cassation declared his appeal inadmissible on the ground that he had not surrendered to custody.   The applicant complained that he had been denied access to a court on account of his appeal on points of law being declared inadmissible. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court reiterated that making the admissibility of an appeal conditional on the appellant surrendering to custody compelled the appellant to subject himself in advance to the deprivation of liberty resulting from the impugned decision, despite that decision not yet being final. Such an obligation impaired the very essence of the right of appeal by imposing a disproportionate burden on the appellant, thus upsetting the fair balance that had to be struck between the concern to ensure that judicial decisions were enforced, on the one hand, and the right of access to the Court of Cassation and exercise of the rights of the defence on the other.   Accordingly, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1. As the applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction, the Court did not make any award under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ioachimescu and Ion v. Romania (no. 18013/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Constantin Ioachimescu and Marcela-Anişoara   Ion, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1955 respectively and live in Constanţa (Romania)   On 25 March 2002 Constanţa Court of First Instance ordered the administrative board of the town to give them possession of a plot of land of 4.5 hectares in the same place as that which had belonged to their father, and to issue them with the title deeds. In spite of the applicants’ efforts, that judgment has not been executed.   The applicants alleged that the non-enforcement of the judgment in question had infringed their right of access to a court as provided for in Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they also complained of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The Court considered that in refusing to execute the judgment of 25 March 2002 the Romanian authorities had deprived the applicants of effective access to a court and of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions without providing them with an explanation for the interference. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court held that Romania must execute the judgment of 25 March 2002 within three months of the Court’s judgment becoming final, failing which the Government would have to pay the applicants EUR   250,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court awarded the applicants EUR   1,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   900 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 8 Kaya v. Romania (no. 33970/05)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 The applicant, Saban Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and currently lives in Turkey. He arrived in Romania in 2000 and married a Romanian national in 2003.   On 15 April 2005 the applicant was declared persona non grata and prohibited from residing in Romania for 15 years, on the ground that “sufficient and reliable information indicated that he was conducting activities such as to endanger national security”. On 18 April 2005 he was arrested by border police and the immigration authority, and the following day he was deported to Turkey.   On the day of his removal, his lawyer appealed against the deportation order. Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.   The applicant complained about the deportation order issued against him. He relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).   The Court reiterated that a person subject to a measure based on national security considerations must, among other things, be able to have the measure in question scrutinised by an independent and impartial body competent to review all the relevant questions of fact and law, in order to determine the lawfulness of the measure and punish a possible abuse by the authorities.   In the applicant’s case, no proceedings had been brought against the applicant for being involved in any offence in Romania or any other country. Apart from a general ground, the authorities had not provided the applicant with any other details. Moreover, the Court of Appeal had confined itself to a purely formal examination of the public prosecutor’s order, without seeking to confirm that the applicant really did represent a danger for national security or public order.   As the applicant had not enjoyed before the administrative authorities or the Court of Appeal the minimum degree of protection against arbitrariness on the part of the authorities, the Court concluded that the interference with his private life had not been in accordance with “a law” satisfying the requirements of the Convention. It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Court thus found that Emergency Ordinance   no.   194/2002, which formed the legal basis for the applicant’s deportation, had not afforded him the minimum guarantees against arbitrary action by the authorities. Consequently, although the applicant had been deported in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law, there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 7 in that the law in question did not satisfy the requirements of the Convention.   In any event the Court considered that the Romanian authorities had infringed the guarantees to which the applicant should have been entitled under paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7. The authorities had failed to provide the applicant with the slightest indication of the case against him and the public prosecutor’s office had not sent him a copy of the deportation order until the day of the single hearing before the Court of Appeal. Further, the Court of Appeal had dismissed all requests for adjournment, thus preventing the applicant’s lawyer from studying the order and from producing evidence in support of the appeal.   Having regard to the purely formal review by the Court of Appeal, the Court found that the applicant had not effectively been able to have his case reviewed in the light of the reasons against his expulsion. It held that there had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded Mr Kaya EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Orha v. Romania (no. 1486/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Ioan-Alexandru Orha and Ligia-Mariana Orha, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1966 respectively and live in Toronto (Canada).   In 1996 the municipal authorities of Satu Mare decided on the expropriation, in the public interest, of several properties belonging to the applicants. They gave their consent. On 28   October 1999 a final judgment established the amount of the compensation due to the applicants and they initially received a partial payment, but they were subsequently ordered to reimburse it further to an appeal by the municipal authorities.   In spite of their efforts, the applicants have so far failed to obtain payment of the amounts awarded.   The applicants submitted that the non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour breached their right of access to a tribunal and complained of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that, by refusing to enforce the judgment of 28 October 1999, the Romanian authorities had deprived the applicants of effective access to a tribunal and of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, without providing them with any explanation for the interference. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court found that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision and therefore reserved it. It awarded the applicants EUR 110 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Aldoshkina v. Russia (no. 66041/01) Stanislav Zhukov v. Russia (no. 54632/00)   The applicant, Irina Igorevna Aldoshkina, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Samara (Russia). She is a former chief tax inspector. In October 1998 she was found guilty of abusing her position to commit fraud. She was fined and prohibited from working for the tax authorities for three years. The Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation later re-characterised the applicant’s offence as an attempt to commit fraud. The applicant and her counsel were not summoned to the hearing and did not attend it.   The applicant, Stanislav Yevgenyevich Zhukov, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. In December 1997 he was found guilty of kidnapping with violence in collusion with others and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The Presidium of the Moscow City Court later re-characterised the offence and found the applicant guilty of being an accomplice to kidnapping without the use of violence. The applicant was not invited to the hearing.   The applicants complained that the proceedings against them had been unfair as they had been denied the right to defend themselves in person before the supervisory review instance. They relied on Article   6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the prosecution was present before the Presidium in both cases and made oral submissions in support of the re-characterisation. Both Presidiums had had to exercise a full review of the cases and could have dismissed the application for supervisory review, quashed the conviction and/or the appeal judgment, discontinued the criminal proceedings, or amended any of the earlier decisions. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the courts could not, if the trial were to be fair, determine the applicants’ cases in their absence. It therefore concluded that the proceedings did not comply with the requirements of fairness and held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 in both cases.   Ms Aldoshkina was awarded EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. No award was made to Mr Zhukov as he did not submit his claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit. (The judgments are 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 Barbu v. Romania (no. 70639/01) Barcanescu v. Romania (no. 75261/01) Danulescu v. Romania (no. 70890/01) Patrichi v. Romania (no. 1597/02) Ruxanda Ionescu v. Romania (no. 2608/02) Sebastian Taub v. Romania (no. 58612/00) Tovaru v. Romania (no. 77048/01)   In these seven cases, the applicants were owners of properties which were expropriated or confiscated by the State.   They alleged that the sale of their property by the State to third parties, for which no compensation had been paid and which had been endorsed by the Romanian courts, violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In addition, on the basis of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants in the cases of Barcanescu and Danulescu and Tovaru complained about the unfairness of the proceedings to which they had been parties. In the case of Tovaru , the applicant also alleged that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held, unanimously in each of these cases, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it did not need to examine separately the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13.   In each of these seven cases, the Court held that Romania had to return the respective flats to the applicants within three months from the date on which these judgments became final. Failing that, the Government would be required to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, the amounts indicated in the table below. The Court further awarded the applicants, for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, the amounts in euros also shown in the table. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Barbu v. Romania 80,000 3,000 - Barcanescu v. Romania 200,000 5,000 - Danulescu v. Romania 110,000 4,000 - Patrichi v. Romania 175,000 5,000 300 Ruxanda Ionescu v. Romania 87,000 3,000 - Sebastian Taub v. Romania 125,000 5,000 500 Tovaru v. Romania 50,000 3,000 1,300       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Konnerth v. Romania (no. 21118/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicant, Sofia   Konnerth, is a Romanian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Făgăraş (Romania).   The applicant and her husband left Romania in 1978 and settled in Germany. After their departure, their property in Braşov was seized by the State in accordance with Decree no.   223/1974. The applicant brought an action seeking the amendment of the entry in the land register.   In a final judgment of 20 April 2001, Braşov Court of Appeal acknowledged the applicant’s title to the property. Consequently, in May 2001 she obtained the re-registration of the property under her name and began paying real-estate tax on it. However, further to an application by the Procurator-General to have the decision quashed, the Supreme Court of Justice, on 8 February 2002, dismissed the applicant’s action for the amendment of the land register.   The applicant submitted that the annulment of the final judgment in her favour had infringed the principle of legal certainty. She alleged that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the annulment of the final judgment of 20 April 2001, in breach of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.   Moreover, the Court considered that a fair balance had not been struck and that the applicant had had to bear an individual and excessive burden in that she had been deprived of a possession without receiving compensation in an amount that reflected its true value, and on which she had been paying real-estate tax for more than a year and a half. It thus held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court held that Romania had to return the disputed flat to the applicant within three months from the date on which this judgment became final. Failing that, the Government would be required to pay her EUR 46,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 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 Pivnenko v. Ukraine (no. 36369/04)   Violation of Article 13     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Tarnavskiy v. Ukraine (no. 6693/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Both applicants are Ukrainian nationals.   The applicants complained about the lengthy failure to enforce various judgments awarding them compensation, due to lack of State funds. They relied on Article 6 §   1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicant in the case of Pivnenko v. Ukraine also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court observed that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. 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 in both cases there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and a violation of Article 13 in the case of Pivnenko v. Ukraine . It held that the applicants should be paid the judgment debts still owed to them as well as EUR 1,246.44 to Mr Pivnenko for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, and EUR 2,600 to Mr Tarnavskiy for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained about the excessive length of civil proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13. The complaint under Article 13 in Debelić v. Croatia was declared inadmissible.   Debelić v. Croatia (no. 9235/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Glazkov v. Russia (no. 10929/03)   Violation of Article 13   ***   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.