CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 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 } .s5B807749 { width:87.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7BC912F7 { width:95.47pt; display:inline-block } .s27EAF3F3 { width:73.45pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s2CEA8CB3 { width:34.58pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64C71B05 { width:40.1pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sEC4BFA56 { width:57.45pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s14288A7D { width:78.48%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s5B9F1551 { width:46.06%; 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 } .s603557F5 { width:33.96%; 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 } .sAB2A60BC { width:19.98%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s40ECF54B { width:46.06%; 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 } .s71451BA { width:33.96%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sA9703F2B { width:19.98%; 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 } .s65498095 { width:46.06%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s97FF58DC { width:33.96%; 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 } .s175FCA51 { width:19.98%; 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 } .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   197 29.3.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, France, Greece, Romania, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   Debelianovi v. Bulgaria (application no 61951/00) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Nikola Georgiev Debelianov and his brother Ivan Georgiev Debelianov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1948 respectively and live in Sofia and Koprivshtitsa (Bulgaria).   In March 1994 the applicants obtained a court order for the return of a house in Koprivshtitsa that had belonged to their father and had been turned into a museum in 1956 after being expropriated. The building is regarded as the most important historic and ethnographical monument in Koprivshtitsa. The District Council appealed several times against the decision to return the building, but without success.   In June 1994 the Bulgarian National Assembly introduced a moratorium on restitution laws with regard to properties classified as national cultural monuments. The moratorium was intended to be applicable until a new law on cultural monuments was passed. No such law has yet been enacted.   The applicants complained of their inability to take possession of their property as a result of the National Assembly’s decision of June 1994. They relied in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the introduction of a moratorium by the National Assembly had had serious and harmful consequences for the applicants and had hindered their rights for more than 12 years, during which time virtually no progress had been made in passing a new law on cultural monuments. The fact that the applicants had been unable to receive any compensation to date, coupled with their uncertainty as to what would become of their property, had further aggravated the detrimental effects of the measure in question.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision as regards the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The Court awarded them 1,150   euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gousis v. Greece (no. 8863/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Dimitrios Gousis, is a Greek national who was born in 1955 and lives in Patras (Greece). He is a mechanical engineer and was an assistant lecturer at the University of Patras from 1991 to 1996.   In July 1997 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party seeking damages, against some of his former colleagues, complaining that they had conspired to have him dismissed from the university. Criminal proceedings were instituted against 12 lecturers for breaching their professional duties. In 2002 the Greek courts found that the prosecution of these offences was time-barred.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant submitted that the conduct of the judicial authorities had resulted in the accused not being tried on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred.   The Court considered that unjustified delays in the pre-trial proceedings had made it impossible for the applicant to obtain a ruling on his claim for damages. It found that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Vaden v. Greece (no. 35115/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Dionysios Vaden, is a Greek national who was born in 1953. He is currently in Kassandra Prison (Greece).   The applicant was arrested on suspicion of forging bank notes and placed in pre-trial detention in Chalkida Prison in March 1998. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in 2003. In January 2004 he was transferred to Korydallos Prison and in September 2004 to Kassandra Prison. The case is currently pending before Athens Court of Appeal.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained of the conditions of his detention in Chalkida and Korydallos Prisons, referring in particular to fetid smells, passive smoking, the unbalanced diet on offer and insomnia as a result of the other prisoners’ behaviour. He also complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court considered that the applicant had not raised the complaint concerning the conditions of his detention before the relevant Greek authorities. It therefore declared his complaint under Article 3 inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings (eight years and 11 months to date), and awarded the applicant EUR 9,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Mircea v. Romania (no. 41250/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ardeluţa   Virginia Mircea is a Romanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Bucharest. At the material time the applicant, who was the director of a commercial company, had business relations with the manager of the SIGO company, the creator of a well-known pyramid game in Romania.   In April 1996 the applicant was arrested while receiving a sum of money from partners of SIGO. She was suspected of trading in influence and was accused of having approached the authorities with a view to preventing the arrest of the manager of SIGO or, in the event of his arrest, encouraging his release and obstructing financial inspections of commercial companies belonging to him.   The applicant was acquitted at first instance but was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by the Supreme Court in May 2002. In view of her state of health, the courts suspended the execution of her sentence on several occasions.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings against her had been unfair, in particular because she had been convicted without having been examined by the Supreme Court. She also submitted, among other things, that sentencing her to a term of imprisonment despite her poor state of health amounted to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The Court declared the complaint under Article 6 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   The Court considered that the fact that the applicant was convicted and sentenced without having the opportunity to give evidence in person, especially after being acquitted by the lower courts, was in breach of the requirements of a fair trial. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine whether any other aspects of the proceedings had breached that provision. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000   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:   Cholet v. France (no. 10033/02)                 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Jean-Luc Cholet, is a French national who was born in 1956 and lives in Montaigu-de-Quercy (France).   In 1998 he lodged a criminal complaint and civil-party application against a lawyer, accusing him, among other things, of collusion and perjury. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal and to the Court of Cassation against the finding that there was no case to answer.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair, notably because he had not been sent a copy of the reporting judge’s report before the hearing whereas the advocate-general had.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court considered that it was unnecessary to make an award to him under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)                                                                                               Arshinchikova v. Russia (no. 74043/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Zinaida Pavlovna Arshinchikova, is a Russian national, who lives in Saratov (Russia).   The case concerned the quashing, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, of a judgment given in Ms Arshinchikova’s favour. She 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 on account of the quashing of the judgment and that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Vydrina v. Russia (no. 35824/04) Mikhaylov v. Ukraine (no. 22986/04)   Pobegaylo v. Ukraine (no. 18368/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants are one Russian national and two Ukrainian nationals and all complain about the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in their favour.   They all relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Ms Vydrina and Mr Mikhaylov also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that on account of the non-enforcement and belated enforcement of judgments there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in all three cases and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Vydrina v. Russia and Mikhaylov v. Ukraine . In the case of Mikhaylov v. Ukraine the Court further held that the State should pay the applicant the judgment debts still owed to him.   The Court awarded the amounts, in euros, shown in the table below. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Vydrina v. Russia 3,000    Mikhaylov v. Ukraine 2,600   Pobegaylo v. Ukraine 300 300     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, 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. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kovacheva and Hadjiilieva v. Bulgaria (no. 57641/00) 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.