CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 novembre 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 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC1B86FCC { width:2.79pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s9CB7D71D { width:54.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s8B08D021 { width:256.88pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s34607FBB { width:51.82%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s6490DCA0 { width:48.18%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s14F744EB { width:51.82%; 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 } .s47FA8A52 { width:48.18%; 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 } .s7A381B1C { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sBB8BF8C7 { width:51.82%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s617A42 { width:48.18%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sF84982E8 { width:188.23pt; display:inline-block } .sF9C7CD51 { width:50.14pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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   740 30.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23   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 5 § 3 Totchev v. Bulgaria (application no 58925/00)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Viktor Vasilev Totchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   In January 1997 criminal proceedings for fraud were brought against the applicant, who was suspected, among other offences, of having incited several people to give him money by claiming to be acting on behalf of an investment company of which he was a director. The applicant was travelling abroad on business at the relevant time and a search warrant was issued for him.   On 24 October 1997 the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. He lodged two complaints about his detention; both were dismissed, the first because the accusation concerned a serious premeditated offence and the second on the ground that the applicant was likely to abscond and to interfere with the administration of justice.   On 13 March 2001 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Articles 5 (right to freedom and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained, in particular, about the unlawfulness and length of his pre-trial detention (three years, four months and 15 days), and about the length of the criminal proceedings against him (three years, five months and 20 days).   The European Court of Human Rights concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the pre-trial detention and no violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings. It awarded the applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 900 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Grecu v. Romania (no. 75101/01)   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 Neculai Grecu is a Romanian national who was born in 1926 and lives in Bucharest.   From 1980 to 1983 the applicant was employed as the deputy director of a Franco-Romanian company based in Paris; he had been appointed to that post by the Romanian Ministry for Industry. He carried out his duties in France and received his salary in French francs, which were paid into a French bank account.   In 1983, when the applicant returned to Romania for professional reasons, the authorities confiscated his passport and removed him from his post. Accused of failing to declare the foreign currency held in his French bank account within the legal time-limit following its transfer to Romania, he was placed in pre-trial detention from 7 January to 15 March 1985. During this period, the applicant had his foreign currency (the equivalent of EUR 12,052.70) transferred from France to his account with the BRCE (the Romanian Bank of Foreign Trade).   By an order of 31 July 1985, the prosecution service ordered that the foreign currency in question be confiscated, terminated the proceedings against the applicant and ordered him to pay an administrative fine.   The applicant submitted several complaints, all of which were dismissed. In addition, his criminal-law appeal seeking to have the confiscation order set aside was dismissed by Bucharest County Court and his administrative appeal against the same order was declared inadmissible. The applicant also sued the Ministry of Finance for the return of the confiscated amounts, but was unsuccessful.   The applicant complained about the unfairness of the proceedings before Bucharest County Court. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters).   The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, since Bucharest County Court, which did not have full jurisdiction, was not “established by law” and did not provide the procedural guarantees required in criminal matters.   In addition, the Court noted that the applicant had been accused of an offence which could not be described as “minor” within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 7, and could not therefore form an exception to the right to have one’s case reviewed by a higher tribunal. Taking account of Romanian legislation and practice at the relevant time, and the repercussions on the criminal proceedings, the Court considered that the applicant had been deprived of the right to have his criminal case examined by two levels of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No.   7.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 9,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 860 for costs and expenses. (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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Rotaru and Cristian v. Romania (no. 29683/02) Vladut v. Romania (no. 6350/02) In these two cases, all three of the applicants are Romanian nationals who live in Bucharest: Aristita Rotaru and Valeria Cristian were born in 1945 and 1943 respectively, and Olimpia Eugenia Vladut was born in 1914. Mrs Vladut died in 2004, but her daughter has applied to the Court for leave to continue the proceedings on her behalf.     The applicants applied to the Romanian courts for the return of properties belonging to them which had been nationalised by the State. The Romanian courts found in their favour. As the State had in the meantime sold the properties to third parties, the applicants brought proceedings to have the relevant contracts of sale declared void. Their applications were dismissed. Mrs Vladut brought a second action to have the contracts overturned, which was successful; her heir took possession of the flat in question in 2004.   The applicants alleged that the sale of their properties to third parties by the State, upheld by the Romanian courts, had, among other things, entailed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court concluded, unanimously in both cases, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It held that Romania was to return the building in question to Mrs Rotaru and Mrs Cristian within three months from the date on which the judgment became final. Failing that, the State was to pay them EUR 45,000 jointly in respect of pecuniary damage. Further, the Court awarded Mrs Rotaru and Mrs Cristian EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. The Court awarded Mrs Vladut’s heir EUR 5,000 for pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kolyada v. Russia (no. 31276/02) Shitikov v. Russia (no. 10833/03) Ananyev v. Ukraine (no. 32374/02) Duma v. Ukraine (no. 39422/04) Goncharov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 43090/04, 43096/04, 43101/04 and 43106/04) Len v. Ukraine (no. 43065/04) Prokhorov v. Ukraine (no. 43138/04) V.S. v. Ukraine (no. 13400/02) The applicants in the first two cases are Russian nationals, the other applicants are Ukrainian nationals.   They complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in their favour. 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 in both cases. It awarded the applicants the following amounts, in euros:     Pecuniary damage Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Kolyada v. Russia 1,080 2,700   850 Shitikov v. Russia 3,026 500 -     Global sum for just satisfaction Ananyev v. Ukraine 1,300      Duma v. Ukraine 2,600      Goncharov and Others v. Ukraine 5,930 Len v. Ukraine 1,400 Prokhorov v. Ukraine 2,145 V.S. v. Ukraine 1,110   (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) and (length) Seregina v. Russia (no. 12793/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Maya Timofeyevna Seregina, is a Russian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Kholmsk (Russia).   The applicant complained that a final and binding judgment declaring her to be the rightful owner in a property dispute was set aside by a higher court in supervisory review proceedings, following an application by a public prosecutor, whose power to make such applications was not subject to any time-limit, so that judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely. She further complained about the length of the proceedings which lasted for over two years. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held, unanimously, that the setting aside of the judgment in supervisory review proceedings violated Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings. The applicant was awarded EUR 70,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   1,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. With the exception of MZT Learnica A.D. Skopje v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” the applicants also complain that they had no effective remedy concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Diakoumakos v. Greece (no. 28749/04) Sillaidis v. Greece (no. 28743/04) Gaischeg v. Slovenia (no. 32958/02) Korda v. Slovenia (no. 25195/02) Kračun v. Slovenia (no. 18831/02) Lesar v. Slovenia (no. 66824/01) Štavbe v. Slovenia (no. 20526/02) Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02) Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine (no. 23786/02)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) MZT Learnica A.D. Skopje v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no.   26124/02)   ***   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.