CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 janvier 2007

.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 } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sEAA82B7E { width:26.77pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s6479BB6F { width:58.45pt; display:inline-block } .s9EE91CE9 { width:74.14pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sAB3CDBE7 { width:242.22pt; display:inline-block } .s466A6DC9 { width:38.12pt; display:inline-block } .sF5627DBA { width:238.19pt; display:inline-block } .sA87CC3D6 { width:65.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sB6F64D44 { width:90.83pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s8E6B5EC9 { width:54.18pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s320ECF20 { width:74.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s5E3CF51E { width:40.84%; 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 } .s80BA0161 { width:27.66%; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s75FA9197 { width:40.84%; 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 } .s9EC74908 { width:27.66%; border-style:solid; border-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 } .s7A381B1C { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s82B9E78A { height:14.6pt } .s33580B01 { width:40.84%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s9AEB27ED { width:27.66%; 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 } .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 } .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   23 11.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Russia and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 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 8 Musa and Others v. Bulgaria (application no. 61259/00)   Violation of Article 13 Ahmad Naim Moh Musa is a Jordanian national of Palestinian descent who was born in 1966; his wife, Dessislava Verchova Musa, and their three daughters, Hadjar Ahmad Naim, Nadya Ahmad and Abdelgafur Ahmad Naim, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1966, 1995, 1996 and 2000 respectively. The applicants live in Sofia, except for Ahmad Naim Moh Musa who lives in Ramallah (Palestine).   Ahmad Naim Moh Musa arrived in Bulgaria in 1984 to study and left the country in 1992 on completion of his studies. He returned to Bulgaria in 1993, married there in 1994 and obtained a permanent residence permit. In 1999 he became director of the “Charitable World IWC” foundation, the role of which is to provide material assistance to Muslims in Bulgaria; at the same time, he was a shareholder in and director of a property company.   On 25 May 2000 the applicant was informed of an order withdrawing his permanent residence permit and requesting him to leave Bulgarian territory within ten days; the order had been adopted on the basis of the Aliens Act, which provided for the withdrawal of residence permits issued to individuals whose activities were such as to endanger the State’s security or interests. The applicant was not informed of the factual grounds on which the order had been based but was informed that no appeal lay against it. Mr Musa submitted several appeals to the Ministry of Justice and the Interior, the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Bulgarian President, seeking to have the order set aside; all were dismissed. He also applied to the Sofia Court, which declared his appeal inadmissible in September 2001.   Mr Musa was arrested on 4 August 2000 and taken to the Sofia detention centre and was held there until 6 August 2000, when he left for Amman. He met his wife and children in Turkey and Jordan on several occasions between March 2001 and September 2005. His wife gave birth to their third daughter in June 2004.   The applicants alleged that there had been a violation of their right to respect for their family and private life, and claimed that there was no effective remedy available under Bulgarian law enabling them to complain of this. They relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights pointed out that it had already held that an expulsion carried out in application of the 1998 Aliens Act did not meet the requirement of lawfulness on account of the absence of sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness; it had also considered that, where matters touching on fundamental human rights were concerned, the national legislation would run counter to the rule of law if, as in the present case, the margin of appreciation granted to the executive was unlimited. As the Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court did not amend its case-law in this matter until 2003, the Court noted that the interference in the applicant’s right to respect for his family life had not been “in accordance with the law”. It therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Court further noted that, at the relevant time, no judicial review was possible against an order withdrawing a residence permit on the grounds of national security. The Bulgarian courts applied this law until 8 May 2003, the date of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment announcing a reversal of the case-law in this area. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   It held, by four votes to three, that this judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants and awarded them 1,500 euros (EUR) jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kunić v. Croatia (no. 22344/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Peter Kunić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Krnjak (Croatia).   In May 1996, after the applicant and his family had left for Bosnia and Herzegovina, his property was temporarily allocated to a third person by the Commission for Temporary Takeover and Use of Property of the Municipality of Krnjak.   On 15 September 1997 the applicant applied for repossession of his property. The temporary occupant was eventually evicted on 23 December 2003.   The applicant complained, in particular, that his rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been violated on account of the length of the proceedings. He 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 found that the proceedings for repossession of the applicant's property, over six years, had lasted an unreasonably long time and had a direct impact on the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. It considered that that delay imposed an excessive individual burden on the applicant and therefore upset the fair balance that had to be struck between the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and the general interest involved.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 16,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Augusto v. France (no. 71665/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Gisèle Augusto, is a French national who was born in 1936 and lives in Vouziers (France).   The applicant, who had a disability rating of 50-79 %, brought proceedings seeking to obtain a retirement pension on the basis of her incapacity to work. As part of those proceedings, she appealed on points of law, submitting in particular that the report by the doctor appointed by the CNITAAT (national tribunal for incapacity and the establishment of insurance for industrial accidents) had not been made available to her. The Court of Cassation dismissed her appeal on points of law on 2 March 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained, in particular, that the proceedings before the CNITAAT had been unfair.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to communicate the opinion of the doctor appointed by the CNITAAT, which would have enabled the applicant to challenge it. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,397.24 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gorou v. Greece (no. 9747/04) Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) and (length) The applicant, Anthi Gorou, is a Greek national who was born in 1957 and lives in Ioannina (Greece).   On 18 February 1998 the applicant filed a complaint for libel against an unknown person, with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party. The applicant appealed, without success, against a decision to acquit the defendants. On 12 September 2003 the prosecutor at the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request to appeal on points of law on the ground, according to a handwritten note, that “there was no reason to appeal on points of law”.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the unfairness and length (five years and more than six months) of the proceedings in question.   The Court concluded, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to provide any reasoning for the dismissal of the applicant’s request. It also concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,900 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mamidakis v. Greece (no. 35533/04)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Kyriakos Mamidakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1932 and lives in Athens. He is chairman of the oil company Mamidoil–Jetoil SA.   In 1997 the applicant was ordered to pay a customs fine of EUR 3,008,216 for smuggling petroleum products and was declared jointly and severally liable for the payment of fines imposed on other persons for customs violations, amounting to a total of EUR 4,946,145. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision which was only partly upheld by the courts; he consequently appealed on points of law. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his appeal on 2 April 2004.   The applicant complained, in particular, that he had not enjoyed a fair trial and alleged that the excessive level of the fine imposed had violated his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Having regard to the serious nature of the offence of smuggling, the dissuasive and punitive nature of the sanctions incurred by it and the amount of the fine which the applicant was ordered to pay, the Court considered that the case fell within the criminal law and that Article 6 of the Convention was therefore applicable. The Court considered, in particular, that the fact that the Greek administrative authorities had not taken account of the lack of criminal proceedings against the applicant did not breach the principle of the presumption of innocence. As it found no other evidence giving rise to the suspicion that the proceedings had been unfair, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   In addition, the Court considered that the imposition of the fine in question had dealt such a blow to the applicant’s financial situation that it amounted to a disproportionate measure in relation to the legitimate aim pursued. It therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   SWIG v. Russia (no. 307/02)   Struck out The applicant, SWIG Group Inc., is a company incorporated in the USA.   In August 1999 the applicant knowingly bought goods that were under injunction. The injunction was never lifted and the applicant neither received the goods nor any compensation for them.   The applicant company complained that there had been a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Having received no reply to its various letters, the Court considered that the applicant did not intend to pursue his petition and found no reasons of a general character which would require the examination of the application. Accordingly, it decided to strike the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Mazurenko v. Ukraine (no. 14809/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Oleg Leonidovich Mazurenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Kozelshchina (Ukraine).   On 15 September 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. In December 2003 he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, suspended on probation for theft. On 27 January 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.   The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings which lasted six years and four months. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 13. It awarded Mr Mazurenko EUR 800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   300 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 Quattrone v. Italy (no. 67785/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Giuseppe Quattrone, is an Italian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Reggio de Calabre (Italy). He was the owner of a plot of building land in Reggio de Calabre. The land was occupied by the authorities with a view to its expropriation and building work was begun. In the absence of formal expropriation and compensation, the applicant brought proceedings seeking damages for the unlawful occupation of his land.   The applicant alleged that the occupation of his land had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). He also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings he had brought in order to seek damages and relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time).   The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings (more than 16 years) and held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint regarding the fairness of the proceedings. The Court considered that the question of just satisfaction in respect of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was not ready for decision and accordingly reserved it. As to the violation of Article 6 § 1, it awarded the applicant EUR 7,900 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) Cornif v. Romania (no. 42872/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Tiberiu Octavian Cornif, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention, he complained about a final decision quashing a judgment given in his favour.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded Mr Cornif EUR 150,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,252 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Galimullin and Others v. Ukraine (no. 7516/04) Guseynova v. Ukraine (no. 19175/05) Kolosay v. Ukraine (no. 25452/03) Parkhomenko v. Ukraine (no. 5531/04) Sukhopar v. Ukraine (no. 16267/04)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 13 Mas v. Ukraine (no. 11931/02) Rakitin v. Ukraine (no. 7675/04)   Petrova v. Ukraine (no. 33635/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   The applicants are 11 Ukrainian nationals.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about the lengthy failure of the State authorities to enforce judgments given in their favour. With the exception of the applicant in the case of Petrova , they also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Relying on Article 13, the applicants in the cases of Mas and Rakitin also claimed that they had no “effective remedy” concerning their complaints.   The Court held unanimously that in all the cases there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, and, with the exception of Petrova , a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in the cases of Mas and Rakitin .   The Court held unanimously that in the cases of Guseynova , Kolosay , Mas and Sukhopar the State should pay the applicants the judgment debts still owed to them, and awarded the amounts, in euros, as shown in the table below. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Galimullin and Others   3,315   Guseynova 1,050     Kolosay 1,304.30     Parkhomenko   800   Sukhopar 1,031.60     Mas   2,600      Rakitin   1,000 600 Petrova   1,000 16     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained, in particular, of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. The applicants in Stefanova v. Bulgaria and Shneyderman v. Russia also claimed that they had had no “effective remedy” concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints. The Court declared inadmissible the remainder of the complaints in the cases of Herbst v. Germany and Shnyderman v. Russia .     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Stefanova v. Bulgaria (no. 58828/00) Shnyderman v. Russia (no. 36045/02)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Smoje v. Croatia (no. 28074/03) Herbst v. Germany (no. 20027/02)   ***   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.