CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 février 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 } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s4C122C38 { width:34.56%; 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 } .sE456A7C5 { width:26.66%; 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 } .s775CA2B5 { width:23.7%; 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 } .sDF770E5A { width:34.56%; 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 } .s9C4776BA { width:26.66%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sED79A2D5 { width:23.7%; 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 } .sC92B5E4E { width:34.56%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s6CDE37C0 { width:26.66%; 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 } .s3B9F1B2 { width:23.7%; 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 } .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 } .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   78 1.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Germany, Latvia, Romania, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 Chamber judgments, none of which is 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.     No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Paljic v. Germany (application no. 78041/01) The applicant, Milos Paljic, was born in 1952 and lives in Blaichach (Germany). At the material time he was a citizen of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro and was employed as a cleaner in a home for the mentally disabled.   He was arrested on suspicion of having sexually abused one of the female residents of the home on two occasions and criminal proceedings were brought against him. On 17 December 1999 the Munich Regional Court convicted him of sexual abuse and of bodily injury and he was sentenced to a suspended term of two years’ imprisonment. On 30 May 2000 the Federal Court of Justice dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law.   The applicant alleged that his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 (access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated as the Federal Court of Justice, when dismissing his appeal on points of law, adopted admissibility criteria which were inconsistent with that same court’s previous case-law and therefore unforeseeable to him.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Nazarenko v. Latvia (no. 76843/01) The applicant, Eduards Nazarenko, is a Latvian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Riga. Before his arrest in 2000 he had been a police inspector.   In September 2000 he was suspected of having committed the offence of soliciting bribes, with aggravating circumstances, in that he had approached a person implicated in criminal proceedings and had promised to close the case in return for a sum of money. On 10 January 2003 Riga Regional Court convicted the applicant of soliciting bribes, with aggravating circumstances, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), among other provisions, the applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and excessively long (two years, three months and 11 days).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention from 29 May to 23 August 2001, when it had not been authorised by a judicial decision. Moreover, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 because of the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Vogins v. Latvia (no. 3992/02) The applicant, Igors Vogins, is a Latvian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Iecava (Latvia).   He was arrested in January 2000 on suspicion of having, with two accomplices, ambushed his father in order to steal his mobile phone and car, and was charged with armed robbery aggravated by assault and extortion. In August 2001 he was found guilty of offences including aggravated extortion and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.   The applicant, relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), complained about the length of his pre-trial detention (one year, seven months and two days).   The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. As he had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court considered that no award should be made to him under that head. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Nerumberg v. Romania (no. 2726/02) The applicants, Herman   Nerumberg, and his daughter, Irene Nerumberg, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1905 and 1955 respectively and live in Piteşti (Romania).   They brought proceedings concerning a plot of land in the municipality of Piteşti. In a final judgment of 24 June 1993 the Romanian courts upheld their claim and ordered the mayor to give them possession of a 716 sq. m plot of land within the town of Piteşti, but stopped short of fixing the boundaries. In spite of the applicants’ efforts, they were unable to obtain the enforcement of the judgment in their favour.   The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), of the refusal by the authorities to comply with the judgment of 24 June 1993.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of one part of the land, but that there had been no violation of those provisions in respect of the other part. It further held that Romania had to enforce the judgment of 24 June 1993 in so far as it concerned the area of land in respect of which there had been a violation of the Convention, failing which the State would have to pay the applicants, jointly, EUR 30,000 within three months from the date on which the judgment became final. In addition, it awarded the applicants EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bragina v. Russia (no. 20260/04) Deykina v. Russia (no. 33689/05) Lyudmila Aleksentseva v. Russia (no. 33706/05) Nartova v. Russia (no. 33685/05) Politova and Politov v. Russia (no. 34422/03) Shlepkin v. Russie (no. 3046/03) Voloskova v. Russia (no. 33707/05) Voronina v. Russia (no. 33728/05) Zaichenko v. Russia (no. 33720/05) The ten applicants are all Russian nationals.   They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In the case of Shlepkin , the Court held by six votes to one, and in all the other cases it held unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court held unanimously that in the case of Politova and Politov the State should pay the applicants the judgment debt still owed to them, and awarded the amounts, in euros, as shown in the table below. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Pecuniary damage Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Bragina 70 3,000   Deykina 145 3,000   Lyudmila Aleksentseva 235 2,700   Nartova 75 3,000   Politova and Politov   6,000   Shlepkin 218 1,500 4 Voloskova 310 3,000   Voronina 140 3,000   Zaichenko 290 3,000       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).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Litvinyuk v. Ukraine (no. 9724/03 Golovko v. Ukraine (no. 39161/02) Makarenko v. Ukraine (no. 43482/02) Ogurstova v. Ukraine (no. 12803/02)     ***   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.