CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBAE3AC0 { width:47.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sC548D554 { width:151.48pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7CC8DF82 { width:181.56pt; display:inline-block } .sC3EE83B2 { width:83.44pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   87 8.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Latvia, Romania, Russia and   Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] can also be found at the end of the press release.     Kollcaku v. Italy (application no 25701/03)   Violation of Article 6 (fairness) The applicant, Dashamir Kollcaku, is an Albanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Selvazzano (Italy).   The applicant was prosecuted for false imprisonment, sexual abuse and profiting from prostitution. He was suspected of having committed the offences in August 1994 in Padua. After he had been found to be deliberately seeking to evade trial, he was assisted by a court-appointed lawyer on whom all the procedural documents were served. During the proceedings the court allowed statements made by a witness to police during the preliminary investigations to be read out in court in accordance with Article 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   On 16 May 1997 the Padua Court sentenced the applicant to five years’ imprisonment.   On his arrest on 8 April 2003 the applicant was served with an order for enforcement of the judgment convicting him and remanded in custody. He instituted proceedings requesting an acknowledgment that he had not been informed of the criminal proceedings against him, but the Padua Court and the Court of Cassation dismissed his request.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that he had been convicted without his knowledge and had been unable to defend himself or have the proceedings reopened. He claimed that he had been convicted on the basis of the evidence of a prosecution witness whom the defence had not had the opportunity of cross-examining. Relying also on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant alleged that he had been discriminated against on account of his Albanian nationality.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 as a result of the applicant’s conviction in absentia but no violation of Article §§ 1 and 3 (d) on account of his inability to examine or have examined a witness against him. It considered it unnecessary to examine the complaint lodged under Article 14. The Court found that the finding of a violation of the Convention provided in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him 4,500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Čistiakov v. Latvia (no. 67275/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Jurij Čistiakov, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Vilnius (Lithuania).   The applicant was arrested on 6 August 1996 on suspicion of aggravated armed robbery committed in Latvia and placed in detention by Latvian police pending trial. His pre-trial detention was extended several times by the Latvian courts. On 30 October 1997 the last detention order expired, but the applicant was not released. On 7 November 1997 he was brought before the court.   On 9 November 2000 Riga Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated armed robbery and burglary and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against his conviction and was released on 6 August 2001. After he had failed to appear at his appeal hearing, the court decided, in January 2002, not to examine the appeal.   The applicant argued that the failure to provide him with the medical care he had requested had resulted in a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the unlawfulness of his detention and the length of his pre-trial detention (four years, three months and three days –three years and about four months of which were subsequent to the entry into force of the Convention with regard to Latvia on 27 June 1997). Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the length of the proceedings against him (five years, five months and eight days). Lastly, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained of an interference with his right to respect for his correspondence as the judge had not allowed him to correspond with his family.   The Court declared the complaint under Article 3 inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. It held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) on account of the applicant’s detention from 30 October 1997 to 7 November 1997 but that there had been no breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) in respect of the other periods during which the applicant had been kept in pre-trial detention. The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and of Article 6 §   1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings. It also held that there had been a breach of Article 8 as there had been no basis in Latvian law for the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had not been a breach of Article 8 regarding the allegation relating to the applicant’s right to respect for his family life. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Cleja and Mihalcea v. Romania (no. 77217/01) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants are Romanian nationals who brought an action against the State for recovery of possession of their property and then two actions for eviction of the former State tenants conditional on an exchange of flats.   The applicants relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   and awarded the applicants EUR 10,000 jointly for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage plus EUR   1,530 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).     Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) and (fairness) Švarc and Kavnik v. Slovenia (no. 75617/01)   Violation of Article 13 The applicants are both Slovenian nationals. Anita Švarc was born in 1968 and lives in Vuzenica (Slovenia), and Ivan Kavnik was born in 1956 and lives in Topolščica (Slovenia).   In October 1989 the applicants had a car accident in Austria in which they were injured and which resulted in the premature birth of their son, who later died. Civil proceedings against the insurance company seeking damages were dismissed because Celje Basic Court decided that the case was not within its jurisdiction. In that connection, Mr Lojze Ude, at the time professor at the Ljubljana Faculty of Law, had given, at the request of the insurance company, an expert opinion on the case. Following the applicant’s appeal being dismissed by the Supreme Court, the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal. This appeal was also declared inadmissible by a three-judge panel which included Mr Ude, who had in the meantime been appointed as a Judge at the Constitutional Court.   The applicants alleged that they did not have a fair trial by an impartial tribunal because their constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible by a panel which included a judge who had issued an opinion in previous proceedings concerning the same case. They also complained about the length of the proceedings which lasted five years and ten months for three levels of jurisdiction. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing 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 as regards the length of the proceedings and as regards the impartiality of the Constitutional Court, finding that, the above-mentioned Judge’s previous involvement in the first-instance proceedings, albeit in a quite different role as a professional expert, put in doubt the impartiality of the tribunal. It was also held unanimously that there was a violation of Article 13 on account of the length-of-proceedings complaint.   The Court awarded each applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000, jointly, 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 Enciu and Lega v. Romania (no. 9292/05) Stroia v. Romania (no. 26449/04) The applicants are Romanian nationals. They are the former owners of real property nationalised or confiscated by the State. The applicants brought actions for recovery of possession of the property and sought to have set aside the contracts of sale signed by the State in their regard .   The applicants relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Enciu and Lega the applicants also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint lodged under Article 6 § 1 in the case of Enciu and Lega . It held that Romania was to return the applicants’ real property to them within three months of the date when the present judgments became final, failing which the State was to pay EUR   140,423 to Mr Enciu and Mrs Lega jointly and EUR   140,000 to Mrs   Stroia for pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded Mr Enciu and Mrs Lega EUR   6,000 jointly for non-pecuniary damage and Mrs Stroia EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aleksandr Ivanov v. Russia (no. 3436/05) Nikishin v. Russia (no. 20515/04) Sergey Tarasov v. Russia (no. 20518/04) The three applicants are Russian nationals and are all retired military officers.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained about the late enforcement of judgments – nearly two years - following them suing the Military Department of the Orenburg Region for an increase in pension and compensation for pecuniary damage.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the belated enforcement of the judgments. In each case, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 2,000   Russian roubles (approximately EUR   58) for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   ***   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 Convention.