CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 décembre 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 } .s10F476C { width:51.44pt; display:inline-block } .s820C08A4 { width:249.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD530AE2E { width:76.15pt; display:inline-block } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s9F12D13E { width:138.15pt; display:inline-block } .sAF6B36BA { width:168.17pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s67794424 { width:58.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA701324E { width:88.8pt; display:inline-block } .sCB8B3A9B { width:121.5pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sEDD1365D { width:93.44pt; display:inline-block } .sD69DB940 { width:32.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sEB08D30E { width:54.96%; 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 } .s650C2A97 { width:20.4%; 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 } .sD0E9C40F { width:24.64%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sE1C99C6B { width:54.96%; 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 } .s4C9624DE { width:20.4%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s1681E7DC { width:24.64%; 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 } .sFF40FE79 { width:54.96%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1817D0D { width:20.4%; 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 } .s9195E4A0 { width:24.64%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .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   765 7.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Slovenia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 25 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Hauser-Sporn v. Austria (application no 37301/03)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Alois Hauser-Sporn, is an Austrian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Ameisberg (Austria).   In February 1995 he was interviewed by the Salzburg Federal Police Authority after he had knocked over pedestrian in his car. He was subsequently found guilty of having negligently caused bodily harm and of having failed to inform the next police station about the accident. He ultimately appealed to the Administrative Court who refused to deal with his complaint. That decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 6 November 2003.   The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings, which lasted eight years and nine months, and that he had no effective remedy to his complaint. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 regarding the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy, and awarded the applicant 1,000   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 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 Hristova v. Bulgaria (no. 60859/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Asya Ivanova Hristova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Targovishte (Bulgaria).   On 28 December 1996, the applicant was arrested and charged together with an accomplice with jointly carrying out a series of fraudulent transactions between 1993 and 1996. They were accused, among other things, of having deceived some 60 people, for whom they had promised to find work abroad in exchange for a sum of money, and of having engaged in fraudulent transfers of property. The applicant was released on 15 August 2000 and was found guilty on 16 charges in October 2003.   Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of the length (three years, seven months and 19 days) and unlawfulness of her detention pending trial and the length of the proceedings against her (nine years, three months and three days).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Yosifov v. Bulgaria (no. 47279/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Plamen Yosifov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria).   In September 1996 he was charged with armed robbery and abduction as a member of a gang; the victim has since died. The applicant, who had left the country, was tracked down in Germany, where he was being detained and prosecuted for benefiting from the earnings of prostitution, making use of forged documents and breaching the immigration regulations. He was extradited to Bulgaria on 11 June 1998. The Pazardzhik District Court confirmed the applicant’s detention on 26 June 1998.   The applicant submitted, in particular, that his detention had breached Article 5 (right to liberty and security) in that he had not been brought before a judge immediately after his extradition. He also alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings against him (more than seven years) had infringed Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). In addition, he relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5, a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings against the applicant, and a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of a remedy in Bulgarian law in respect of the excessive length of proceedings.   Since the applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction in accordance with the prescribed procedure and time-limit, the Court considered that no award should be made to him under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Hunt v. Ukraine (no. 31111/04)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Alexander Hunt, is a national of the United States of America who was born in 1953 and lives in Riga (Latvia).   The applicant lived in Ukraine with his Ukrainian wife. They had a son together who was born in 2000 and he adopted his wife’s other child. He left Ukraine in January 2003 and he and his wife divorced shortly afterwards.   In June 2003 his wife filed a complaint about him with the Head of the Department for Combating Organised Crime of the Ministry of the Interior which resulted in him being prohibited from entering Ukraine for five years.   Following further proceedings brought by his wife, Pechersky District Court of Kyiv deprived the applicant of his parental rights with respect to his natural son. The applicant was represented before the court by his lawyer but was unable to attend himself due to the prohibition on him entering Ukraine. He appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complained that he was denied a fair hearing in that was unable to participate in the court’s proceedings and that his prohibition from entering Ukraine deprived him of his parental rights. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court concluded that the applicant was not involved in the decision-making process to an extent necessary to protect his interests and that the national authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and those of other persons. It therefore found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Having regard to that finding it considered it was not necessary to examine his complaint under Article 6.   He was awarded EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1.40 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 15007/02)   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 The applicant, Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Ivanov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Zhytomyr (Ukraine).   On 22 September 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant with regard to a fight he had had with his neighbour. In January 1996 further charges were brought and he gave a written undertaking not to abscond. In March 1996 he was charged with inflicting medium bodily harm. The criminal proceedings were terminated and resumed several times until on 3 March 2006 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. He was, however, exempted from serving the sentence as the charges against him had become time-barred. The applicant appealed and the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court.   The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings and that he had no recourse to an effective remedy in respect to that complaint. He further complained about the lengthy restriction on his freedom of movement as a result of the undertaking not to abscond. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   The Court recalled that the period to be taken into consideration began on 11 September 1997, when the recognition by Ukraine of the right of individual petition took effect. The Court however noted that the criminal proceedings were instituted on 22 September 1995 and are still pending - a period lasting over 11 years, of which over nine years fell within the Court’s jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court found that the overall duration of those proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the reasonable time requirement. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.   The Court noted that the undertaking not to abscond was imposed on the applicant for a period of approximately 10 years and four months, out of which eight years and eight months fell within the Court’s competence. The Court noted that the length of the restriction alone was sufficient to conclude that it was a disproportionate measure. The Court further emphasised that the applicant had been prosecuted for a moderately serious offence and that the charges against him had become time-barred already in September 2000 whereas the restriction was imposed on him until May 2006. In view of those considerations, the Court reached the conclusion that a fair balance had not been met between the demands of the general interest and the applicant’s rights. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.   The applicant was awarded EUR 4,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (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:   Ban v. Romania (no. 46639/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant Tiberiu Ban, was a Romanian national who was born in 1937 and, until his death in 2005, lived in Cluj-Napoca (Romania). In 1950 the State nationalised the house built by his grandfather. In 1994 the applicant brought an action for recovery of possession in order to obtain restitution of the property. The Romanian courts dismissed the action.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant alleged, among other things, a violation of his right of access to a court on account of the dismissal of his action for recovery of possession.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant’s heirs jointly EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 215 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 Ivashchishina v. Ukraine (no. 43116/04) Kononenko v. Ukraine (no. 33851/03) Kozachek v. Ukraine (no. 29508/04) Kravchuk v. Ukraine (no. 42475/04) Mirvoda v. Ukraine (no. 42478/04) Rogozhinskaya v. Ukraine (no. 2279/03) Serikova v. Ukraine (no. 43108/04) Shevtsov v. Ukraine (no. 16985/03) Viktor Tarasenko v. Ukraine (no. 38762/03) Vilikanov v. Ukraine (no. 19189/04)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Raisa Tarasenko v. Ukraine (no. 43485/02)   Violation of Article 13   Spas and Voyna v. Ukraine (no. 5019/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   The 13 applicants are Ukrainian nationals.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) they complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce judgments given in their favour. With the exception of Raisa Tarasenko , the applicants also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicants in Raisa Tarasenko , Shevtsov and Spas and Voyna complained under Article 13 that they had had no “effective remedy” concerning their complaints.     The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all the cases except Raisa Tarasenko and Spas and Voyna . In both these cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, and a further violation of Article 13 in the case of Raisa Tarasenko . The Court held that it was not necessary to examine the Article 13 complaint in the cases of Shevtsov and Spas and Voyna .   The Court held that the respondent State should pay the applicants the judgment debts still owed to them in the cases of Kononenko , Kravchuk , Mirvoda , Raisa Tarasenko and Spas and Voyna.   In the case of Shevtsov the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in the time-limit fixed by the Court. Accordingly, the Court considered that there was no call to award him any sum on this account.   The Court awarded the applicants the following amounts, in euros. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Non-Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses Ivashchishina v. Ukraine 630 - Kononenko v. Ukraine - 2,300 Kozachek v. Ukraine 421 - Kravchuk v. Ukraine 1,300 - Mirvoda v. Ukraine 1,010 - Rogozhinskaya v. Ukraine 800 - Serikova v. Ukraine - 920 Viktor Tarasenko v. Ukraine - 1,230 Vilikanov v. Ukraine 800 - Raisa Tarasenko v. Ukraine 1,000 - Spas and Voyna v. Ukraine - 5,245     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained, in particular, of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). The applicants in Čakš v. Slovenia , Čop v. Slovenia , Lakota v. Slovenia and Virjent v. Slovenia also complained under Article 13 that they had had no “effective remedy” concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mačinković v. Croatia (no. 29759/04) Nogolica v. Croatia (No. 3) (no. 9204/04) Šamija v. Croatia (no. 14898/04)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Čakš v. Slovenia (no. 33024/02) Čop v. Slovenia (no. 6539/02) Lakota v. Slovenia (no. 33488/02) Virjent v. Slovenia (no. 6841/02)   ***   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.