CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA623B55F { width:94.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA126A226 { width:124.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s8122FD2D { width:2.13pt; display:inline-block } .s81039FA9 { width:88.81pt; display:inline-block } .s72F008A0 { width:80.83pt; display:inline-block } .s5F6CEB21 { width:58.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBF339177 { width:227.55pt; display:inline-block } .s738D413A { width:205.58pt; display:inline-block } .s50E127FF { width:141.45pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sD8B9A8E1 { width:36.14%; 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 } .sB93FC50E { width:25.1%; 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 } .s36746479 { width:20.38%; 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 } .s629FDFE0 { width:18.38%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s55BCEE93 { width:36.14%; 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 } .s60C98399 { width:25.1%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sAFEE1E11 { width:20.38%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sD10523F3 { width:18.38%; 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 } .s188DBCF7 { width:36.14%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s9F0357C3 { width:25.1%; 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 } .s8691DBF1 { width:20.38%; 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 } .s27B49788 { width:18.38%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sE099AA7A { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .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   62 25.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, France, Greece, Italy, Romania and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 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.   Eski v. Austria (application no 21949/03)   No violation of Article 8 The applicant, Refet Eski, is an Austrian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Vienna.   The applicant complained that his nine and a half year old daughter had been adopted by her mother’s new partner without his consent. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Hesse v. Austria (no. 26186/02)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Heinz-Dieter Hesse, is a German national who was born in 1943 and is currently living in Germany.   The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention (two years and nearly four months). He relied on Article 5 §§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge).   The Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aon Conseil et Courtage S.A. and Christian de Clarens S.A. v. France (no. 70160/01) The applicants, Aon Conseil et Courtage S.A. and Christian de Clarens S.A., are French companies, based in Paris.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant companies complained of the refusal of their application for reimbursement of sums they had been overcharged as VAT payments in respect of the first half of 1998.   The Court held that there had been violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, unanimously as regards Christian de Clarens S.A. and by 5 votes to 2 as regards Aon Conseil et Courtage. It awarded Aon Conseil et Courtage EUR 164,267,89 for pecuniary damage and EUR   7,099.12 for costs and expenses. It awarded Christian de Clarens S.A. EUR 73,711.63 for pecuniary damage and EUR   5,652.68 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Aja International Trade B.V. v. Greece (no. 22879/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Aja International Trade B.V., is a company registered under Dutch law, with its headquarters in Alsmeer (Netherlands).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), it complained of the length of proceedings concerning a criminal complaint in which it was a civil party (four years, four months and twenty days, at one level of jurisdiction). Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), it further complained of the fact that in Greece there was no court which could be applied to in order to complain of the excessive length of the proceedings.   The Court held that there had been breaches of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 and awarded the applicant company EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Rompoti & Rompotis v. Greece (no. 14263/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Chrissanthi Rompoti and Alexandros Rompotis, are Greek nationals who live in Athens.   They complained of the administrative authorities’ refusal to comply with a judgment of the Athens Administrative Court by rescinding the expropriation of their land. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Iorga v. Romania (no. 4227/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Dumitru Iorga, was born in 1915 and lived in Bucharest until his death on 19   January 2005. The Court authorised his widow and daughter to pursue the application in his place.   The applicant complained that his right of access to a court had been infringed on account of the high level of the necessary stamp duty in relation to his family’s monthly income. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was not necessary to rule on the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (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:   Morea v. Italy (no. 69269/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Mario Morea, Cesare Morea and Paola Morea, are Italian nationals who were born in 1944, 1928 and 1930 respectively and live in Mottola and Putignano (Italy).   They alleged that they had been deprived of their land in circumstances incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). They further alleged an infringement of their right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1.   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the merits of the complaint under Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Negoita v. Romania (no. 986/04)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Constantin Virgil Negoita, is a Romanian national who was born in 1936 and lives in New York.   He alleged that the sale of his flat to third parties had breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that Romania was to return to the applicant the flat in question within three months from the date on which the judgment became final. Failing such restitution, the State was to pay him EUR   60,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses (The judgment is available only in French.)     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Belyayev v. Russia (no. 24620/02)   Violation of Article 13     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Denisov v. Russia (no. 21823/03) Makarov v. Russia (no. 21074/03) The three applicants are Russian nationals.   They all relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicant in Belyayev also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   In the case of Belyayev , the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the non-enforcement and belated enforcement of judgments. In the cases of Denisov and Makarov the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that in these two cases the State should pay the applicants the judgment debts still owed to them.   The Court awarded the amounts, in euros, shown in the table below. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Pecuniary damage Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Belyayev 492 4,900   187   Denisov   3,000   20 Makarov   3,900       Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained, in particular, of the excessive length of administrative proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Andriotis & Andrioti v. Greece (no. 389/03) Elmaliotis & Konstantinidis v. Greece (no. 28819/04) Tsekouridou v. Greece (no. 28770/04) Cârjan v. Romania (no. 42588/02)     ***   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.