CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 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 } .s24C158EF { width:81.45pt; display:inline-block } .sE95971D4 { width:284.9pt; display:inline-block } .s27B43D73 { width:134.81pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s49DAA3DF { width:108.14pt; display:inline-block } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s4D4BA0C0 { width:44.83pt; display:inline-block } .sC10173EF { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s3D964D38 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s1F58F73B { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s153C356E { width:70.17pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s928910E5 { width:150.15pt; display:inline-block } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   635 26.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Romania, Russia and   Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 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.   Asadov and Others v. Azerbaijan (application no 138/03)   Struck out The applicants, Etimad Asadov, Firudin Mamedov, Asaf Aliyev, Bahruz Jamalov, and Oqtay Mehdiyev, are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1963, 1970, 1965, 1962 and 1968 respectively and live in Baku (Azerbaijan).   In December 2001 the applicants founded a non-profit making organisation to help the victims of the war in Karabakh and protect their interests. On the same day, the applicants applied to register the association with the Ministry of Justice. The association was finally registered in April 2006   The applicants complained about the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register their public association in a timely manner. They relied on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Taking into account a letter received by Mr Asadov informing the Court of the applicants’ wish to withdraw their application, the European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously to strike out the case. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Two violations of Article 5 § 3 Danov v. Bulgaria (no. 56796/00)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Hristo Georgiev Danov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). He was a member of the board of directors of a local bank and a director of a private brokerage firm.   The applicant who was on bail, having been charged with embezzlement in July 1998, was re-arrested in November 1999 after the police received information that he was about to abscond. He was later placed under house arrest. He appealed against those decisions.   The applicant complained in particular that his detention and house arrest were unjustified and that the appeal proceedings were unfair. He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the applicant not having been promptly brought before a judge or other officer authorised   by law to exercise judicial power, and a violation of the same article on account of the authorities’ failure to justify his continued detention. The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the applicant having been denied the right to have the continued lawfulness of his detention reviewed effectively by a court. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   The applicant was awarded 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mareš v. Czech Republic (no. 1414/03) The applicant, Jan Mareš, is a Czech national who was born in 1952 and lives in Srbsko (Czech Republic). He used to be a police officer with the financial crimes division.   On 27 July 2001 he was found guilty of abuse of power by an official and accepting bribes and was sentenced, among other things, to three years’ imprisonment. His appeal to the Constitutional Court was dismissed in July 2002. The applicant complained in particular that he was not given an opportunity to submit observations on the written statements submitted to the Constitutional Court by the authorities involved in the proceedings in response to his appeal to that Court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 313   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Chraidi v. Germany (no. 65655/01)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Yasser Chraidi, is a stateless person who was born in 1959 in Lebanon where he now lives. When lodging his application, he was detained in Berlin.   On 24 May 1996 the applicant was extradited to Germany from Lebanon and held in detention. He was accused of having organised the bomb attack on the “La Belle” discotheque in Berlin in April 1986 in which three people died and 104 were seriously injured. On 13 November 2001 he was convicted of aiding and abetting murder, attempted murder and causing an explosion.   The applicant complained, in particular, about the excessive length of his detention on remand which lasted approximately five and-a-half years. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning the applicant’s detention on remand and that it was unnecessary to examine this complaint under Article 6. Mr Chraidi’s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Acatrinei v. Romania (no. 7114/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Elena Acatrinei and her son Vasile Acatrinei, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1928 and 1948 respectively and live in Negriţeşti (Romania). In judgments of November 1993 and February 1994 the relevant administrative commissions were ordered to give Elena Acatrinei possession of three pieces of land. The judgments were never enforced. The applicants alleged that the non-enforcement of the judgments in question had infringed their right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Elena Acatrinei also complained of an infringement of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,200   in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 8 Ledyayeva, Dobrokhotova, Zolotareva and Romashina v. Russia (nos. 53157/99, 53247/99, 53695/00 and 56850/00) The applicants, Lyudmila Konstantinovna Ledyayeva, Elena Grigoryevna Dobrokhotova, Zhanna Vladmirovna Zolotareva and Ekaterina Efimovna Romashina, are Russian nationals. They were born in 1948, 1928, 1932 and 1932 respectively.   They all live in Cherepovets (Russia), an important steel-producing centre.   The applicants all lived within the buffer zone of the Severstal steel plant, which was supposed to separate the plant from the town’s residential area and where the concentration of by-products of steel production regularly exceeded recommended limits. They unsuccessfully brought proceedings to be resettled outside the area or to be given a grant to purchase new housing in a safer area.   The applicants complain about the Russian State’s failure to protect their private lives and homes from severe environmental nuisance. They relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court recalled that in a previous case, Fadeyeva v. Russia , it already established that the Severstal steel-plant's operations did not fully comply with the environmental and health standards laid down in Russian law. In that case the Court considered two alternative avenues that could have been employed by the authorities in order to solve the applicant's problem: the resettlement of the applicant outside the zone and the reduction of the toxic emissions.   Having examined the materials submitted to it, the Court noted that, in the applicants’ cases, the Government did not put forward any new fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a conclusion different from that of the Fadeyeva case. The Court concluded that the Russian authorities failed to take appropriate measures in order to protect the applicants' right to respect for their homes and private lives against serious environmental nuisances. In particular, they neither resettled the applicants outside the dangerous zone, nor provided compensation for those seeking resettlement. Furthermore, the authorities failed to develop and implement an efficient public policy which would induce the owners of the steel-plant to reduce its emissions to the safe levels within a reasonable time.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded EUR   7,000 to Ms Ledyayeva, EUR 8,000, each, to Ms Dobrokhotova and Ms Zolotareva and EUR 1,500 to Ms Romashina in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Each applicant was awarded EUR 800 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 Emanuele Calandra and Others v. Italy (no. 71310/01) Ippoliti v. Italy (no. 12263/05) In these two cases the applicants all owned land that was occupied by the authorities with a view to expropriation; construction work was started on it. In the absence of an expropriation order or any compensation, the applicants brought proceedings claiming damages for unlawful occupation of their land. The applicants complained about the occupation of their land, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1. In Emanuele Calandra   and Others , the Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. The Court made no award to Mr Ippoliti as had not submitted a figure for his claim for just satisfaction within the required period. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Friedrich v. Czech Republic (no. 12108/03) The applicant, Vladimír Friedrich, is a Czech national who was born in 1947 and lives in Žacléř (Czech Republic). He commenced proceedings after his entitlement to a full disability pension was withdrawn. In the course of the proceedings he lodged a constitutional complaint which was dismissed as being out of time by the Constitutional Court. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant maintained that the dismissal of his constitutional complaint had infringed his right of access to a court. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. The applicant in the Novina v. Slovenia case also complained under Article 13 that he had had no effective remedy concerning that complaint   Lenardon v. Belgium (no. 18211/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Novina v. Slovenia (no. 6855/02)   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.