CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 } .sBEE74AEB { width:88.79pt; display:inline-block } .s58D010F { width:95.84pt; display:inline-block } .sDB55E163 { width:186pt; display:inline-block } .s2CB99A5F { width:30pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s2AB45771 { width:12.8pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s21410711 { width:27.48pt; display:inline-block } .s5896CB2E { width:216.85pt; display:inline-block } .s56DE058C { width:171.48pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s79AC7AA { width:62.14pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sAD8E5983 { width:64.81pt; display:inline-block } .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   124 22.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Greece, Romania, Russia and   Sweden   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   One repetitive case [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Donner v. Austria (application no 32407/04)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Karl Friedrich Donner, is an Austrian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Salzburg.   The application concerns investigations, starting in the autumn of 1989, into large-scale fraud against the “WEB/IMMAG” group, one of the companies of which the applicant is a managerial director and member of the board of directors, resulting in the applicant being charged with tax evasion in January 1998.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained in particular about the length of the proceedings.   Finding that the case was before the investigating authorities for more than six years, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make such an award. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Perlala v. Greece (no. 17721/04)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 The applicant, Arban Perlala, is an Albanian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Athens.     Suspected of having thrown Molotov cocktails during a demonstration against the Greek educational system in January 1999, the applicant was prosecuted. He was sentenced on appeal to two years and six months’ imprisonment, suspended. The applicant appealed on points of law, alleging in particular that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on 4 November 2003 without examining the ground of appeal based on Article 6.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings which resulted in his conviction had been unfair, particularly on account of erroneous interpretation of the witness statements and other evidence by the appeal court and the dismissal of his appeal on points of law.   The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Sakkopoulos (No. 2) v. Greece (no. 14249/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Panagiotis Sakkopoulos, is a Greek national who was born in 1934. He was land registrar in Kropia (Attica).   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained, in particular, about the length of proceedings brought following a complaint lodged by him in 1999 against a colleague who had accused him of forgery, with a request to join the proceedings as a civil party. Those proceedings are still pending.   Noting that the proceedings in question had so far lasted more than seven years, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gavrileanu v. Romania (no. 18037/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Ioan Gavrileanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Suceava (Romania). His grandmother owned a plot of land in Volovăţ which was nationalised in 1957.   Following proceedings brought by the applicant, a judgment of 2 October 1997 ordered the relevant authorities to grant him a plot of land measuring 1.14 ha, situated within the village of Volovăţ. In spite of the applicant’s attempts, he has to date received no title acknowledging his ownership of property.   The applicant alleged that the Romanian authorities’ refusal to comply with final judicial decisions ordering that he be given possession of a plot of land and of the title to the property had entailed a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. It held that Romania was to execute the judicial decision to issue the applicant with the title to the property. Considering that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision, neither with regard to compensation for the loss of earnings arising from the failure to execute the judgment of 2 October 1997, nor in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court decided to reserve it. It awarded Mr Gavrileanu EUR 250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ahmed v. Sweden (no. 9886/05)   Struck out The applicant, Mohammed Ibrahim Ahmed, is a Somali national who was born in 1972. He fled to Kenya when his village in Somalia was attacked by the military and, from there in February 1993, continued on to Sweden where he applied for asylum. The Immigration Board rejected this request but granted him a permanent residence permit on humanitarian grounds.   Subsequently, the applicant discovered he was infected with the HIV virus and he immediately underwent treatment at a Swedish hospital.   Following two convictions in 1995 and 2002 resulting in prison sentences from which the applicant was conditionally released, the Government decided in February 2005 not to revoke an expulsion order on him and rejected his request for a residence permit. On 24 March 2005 the applicant made an application under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (of the European Court of Human Rights) and the Government stayed the execution of the expulsion order until further notice.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant complained that his expulsion to either Somalia or Kenya would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment since the specific medical treatment and medicines required by his HIV infection were not available in those countries.   The Court noted that on 26 October 2006 the Swedish Government granted the applicant a temporary residence permit until 31 December 2008 and that the applicant had declared, on that basis, that he did not wish to pursue his application before the Court. The Court therefore decided unanimously to discontinue the application and strike the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Valin v. Sweden (no. 61390/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Ragnar Valin, is a Swedish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Leksand (Sweden).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for grossly impeding tax supervision and for which he was acquitted in March 2001.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 15,000 is to be paid to the applicant . (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same finding as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Vyalykh v. Russia (no. 5225/06)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Andrey Anatolevich Vyalykh, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Irkutsk (Russia).   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained about a judgment awarding him to 230,099.52 Russian roubles (approximately 6,415 euros) and RUR 35,000 (approximately EUR 976) in costs was not paid in good time.   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 40,148   Russian roubles (approximately EUR   1,170) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,200 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Kolomiyets v. Russia (no. 76835/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   ***   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.