CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 mars 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 } .s9EFD5ADF { width:26.79pt; display:inline-block } .sC9CD9FCD { width:92.12pt; display:inline-block } .s4722ECCB { width:358.91pt; display:inline-block } .s87E99523 { width:129.48pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sFB2F63B6 { width:110.82pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s5E32F47F { width:141.49pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   154 8.3.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, the Netherlands, Romania and Russia     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments 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 5 § 3 Dimov v. Bulgaria (application no 56762/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Veselin Nikolov Dimov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1962. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Stara Zagora (Bulgaria).   He was arrested on 15 September 1995 on suspicion of killing a man and seriously injuring a woman. On 9 June 1997 he was found guilty of homicide and attempted homicide and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. The judgment was set aside in October 1998 and he was released on bail on 19 March 1999.   On 12 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld his 20-year prison sentence.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated during his arrest and while in police custody, and complained of the conditions of his detention. He further alleged, under Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), that his detention pending trial and the proceedings against him had been excessively long.   The European Court of Human Rights declared the complaint under Article 3 inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It declared admissible the complaints under Articles 5 and 6.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s detention pending trial, which had lasted for some two years and three months. It also held that the length of the proceedings against him, namely seven years and nine months, had been excessive and entailed a violation of Article 6 § 1. By way of just satisfaction the Court awarded the applicant 1,700 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Arma v. France (no. 23241/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, France Lise Arma, is a French national who was born in 1954 and lives in Sevran (France).   In 2001 the applicant set up a company, Arma Pneu, of which she was the manager and sole shareholder. An order was made for the company’s liquidation in May 2003. An appeal by the applicant against the order was declared inadmissible on the ground that the managing director of a corporate entity that had been wound up had no authority to act and the appeal should have been lodged by a representative.   The applicant submitted that the fact that her appeal against the order for her company’s liquidation had been declared inadmissible had deprived her of her right of access to a court. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 because of the excessive restriction of the applicant’s right of access to a court. It awarded her EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,023.20 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Just satisfaction Salah v. the Netherlands (no. 8196/02)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Khalid Salah, is an Algerian national, born in 1964, and who is currently serving a 20 year prison sentence in the Netherlands for, among other things, rape, deprivation of liberty, murder, theft and robbery.   The application concerned the weekly routine strip-searches to which Mr Salah was subjected while in maximum-security prisons. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life).   In its chamber judgment of 6 July 2006 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning the weekly routine strip-searches and that it was not necessary to examine whether there had also been a violation of Article 8. The Court further decided that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 2,500 is to be paid to the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Dănilă v. Romania (no. 53897/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) The applicant, Costica Dănilă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Constanţa (Romania). From August 1994 to April 1995 he was a bank manager.   The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in November 1995 after one of the bank’s customers had lodged a criminal complaint accusing him of corruption. In July 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.   The applicant alleged that he had not had a fair hearing in the Supreme Court of Justice, which had convicted him without allowing him to state his case, and submitted that he had been prevented from examining the person who had lodged the complaint against him. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, on account of the applicant’s inability to state his case before the Supreme Court of Justice, and a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d), because he had been prevented from examining a witness for the prosecution. By way of just satisfaction the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Popescu and Toader v. Romania (no. 27086/02) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Radu Popescu and Teodora Toader, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1932 and 1938 respectively and live in Bucharest.   In 1997 the Romanian courts allowed an action by the applicants for recovery of possession of a property in Bucharest. However, the tenant of the house refused to sign a lease agreement with them and two actions they brought for his eviction were dismissed. The applicants then brought eviction proceedings, which were initially disallowed because of a failure to comply with the formalities laid down in Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) no. 40/1999.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that, as a result of the application of the relevant emergency provisions, they had been unable, for a prolonged period, to make use of a building which had been returned to them and to receive rental income.   The Court considered that the penalising of landlords who had failed to comply with the formalities laid down in the GEO, by imposing on them such a heavy obligation as to keep tenants in their property for five years without any real possibility of receiving rent, had created for the applicants an individual and excessive burden liable to upset the fair balance between the interests concerned. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   20,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Sidorenko v. Russia (no. 4459/03)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Vladimir Ivanovich Sidorenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Rostov-on-Don (Russia).   The application concerned criminal proceedings brought against Mr Sidorenko on suspicion of arbitrary actions in May 1997. Ultimately, there having been no indication of a criminal offence, the proceedings against him were discontinued in June 2003. That decision was, however, annulled and the investigation re-opened in July 2003. It appears that the criminal case against Mr Sidorenko is still pending.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Sidorenko complained about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of proceedings, which had lasted approximately eight years and eight months. The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic law whereby Mr Sidorenko could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. The Court declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   As Mr Sidorenko had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make an award on that account. (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 Gabriel v. Romania (no. 35951/02) Florescu v. Romania (no. 41857/02) Weigel v. Romania (no. 35303/03)   In these three cases the applicants alleged that the sale of their flats to third parties, which had been validated by court decisions and had not given rise to any compensation, entailed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Weigel the applicant also alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously, in all three cases, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the cases of Gabriel and Florescu it held that Romania should return the property in question to the applicants, failing which the State would have to make awards for pecuniary damage of EUR 60,000 in the Gabriel case and EUR 70,000 in the Florescu case. In the Florescu case, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 7,000 for costs and expenses. Moreover, in the Weigel case the Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for hearing and accordingly reserved it in its entirety. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants, 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.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Uljar and Others v. Croatia (no. 32668/02) Odysseos v. Cyprus (no. 30503/03)   ***   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.