CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 avril 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 } .s98C8AC2E { width:78.1pt; display:inline-block } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sCE5F2498 { width:36.17pt; display:inline-block } .sA1A59DDF { width:67.45pt; display:inline-block } .sBF339177 { width:227.55pt; display:inline-block } .sE509157B { width:2.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s9743D5FD { width:49.46pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s85FEEAAD { width:39.28%; 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 } .s984AEBE4 { width:21.96%; 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 } .s3F477E3B { width:18.82%; 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 } .sCB0A31D4 { width:19.94%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B470666 { width:39.28%; 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 } .sD0B5A84E { width:21.96%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s9A49F5F2 { width:18.82%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s90B746CB { width:19.94%; 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 } .s8B1E8B93 { width:39.28%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s57BFC5B2 { width:21.96%; 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 } .s60011B8E { width:18.82%; 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 } .s3D41F959 { width:19.94%; 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 } .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   211 5.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Greece, Luxembourg, Russia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] with the Court’s main finding indicated can also be found at the end of the press release.     Nastou v. Greece (No. 2) (application no. 16163/02)   Just satisfaction The seven applicants, Maria Nastou, Alexandra Nastou, Styliani Al. Nastou, Constantina Al. Nastou, Heleni Nastou, Styliani I. Nastou and Constantinos Nastos, are all Greek nationals.   The case concerned a dispute over land known as the “Karras estate” in a suburb of Athens. In 1985 the State took possession of a substantial part of the estate under “occupation agreements” issued on the basis of an inventory of State property commissioned by the Ministry of Finance. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that the State had taken possession of the land without a prior court order or the payment of any compensation. They also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the proceedings and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). In a judgment of 15 July 2005 the European Court of Human Rights had held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.   In its judgment on just satisfaction, delivered today, the European Court of Human Rights decided to award the applicants jointly 600,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 60,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 50,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Stoimenov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 17995/02) The applicant, Jordan Stoimenov, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Vinica (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia).   The application concerned Mr Stoimenov’s conviction on drug related offences in March 2000 for which he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the principle of equality of arms had been breached as the national courts had convicted him on the basis of expert reports produced by the same ministry which had brought criminal charges against him.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the principle of equality of arms and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. It awarded Mr Stoimenov EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Laghouati and Others v. Luxembourg (no. 33747/02)   Violation of Article 13 The eight applicants are Algerian and French nationals who live in Fameck, Terville, Thionville and Briey (France).   In February 1996 they joined the proceedings as civil parties in criminal proceedings opened following an industrial accident on a building site which had resulted in the death of their son and brother. In March 2005, having decided that the prosecutions brought against the defendants were time-barred, the court of appeal held that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the applicants’ civil claims.   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained about the length (more than nine years) of the proceedings in question.     The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 and awarded each of the applicants EUR 10,000 (a total of EUR 80,000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded them EUR 1,500 jointly 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:   Novković v. Croatia (no. 43437/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Milan Novković and Ivanka Novković, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1952 and 1951 respectively and live in Karlovac (Croatia).   The application concerned a civil action against the Government seeking damages after the applicants’ restaurant in Karlovac was blown up four times between September 1991 and April 1992. They relied on section   180 of the Civil Obligations Act. The proceedings were stayed in June 2001 pending enactment of new legislation under the 1996 Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act.   The applicants complained about Parliament’s enactment of the 1996 Amendment. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13. It awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   2,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Aleksandr Popov v. Russia (no. 38720/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Furman v. Russia (no. 5945/04) Khvorostina and Others v. Russia (no. 20098/03)   Donichenko v. Ukraine (no. 19855/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants are seven Russian nationals and one Ukrainian national.   Mr Popov’s application concerned disability benefits owed to his father on account of his having taken part in the emergency operation at the Chernobyl nuclear plant.   Mr Furman’s application concerned the failure of a State-owned maintenance company to pay his enterprise for construction work it had carried out.   The application Khvorostina and Others v. Russia concerned wage arrears owed to the applicants following their dismissal from Korenovskiy District Council.   Mr Donichenko’s application concerned the failure of the police to comply with the obligation in a final and binding judgment to apologise to Mr Donichenko for police officers’ unlawful conduct.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), all the applicants complained about the non-enforcement or lengthy enforcement of judgments given in their favour. With the exception of Mr   Donichenko, they also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that in the case of Aleksandr Popov v. Russia there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the lengthy enforcement of eight judgments in his favour. A further violation was found of Article 6 § 1 concerning non-enforcement of one judgment in his favour. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   In the other three cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1. In the cases of Furman v. Russia and Khvorostina and Others v. Russia the Court held that there had also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the cases of Khvorostina and Others v. Russia and Donichenko v. Ukraine the remainder of the applications were declared inadmissible.   The Court held unanimously that in the cases of Furman v. Russia and Khvorostina and Others v. Russia the State should secure the enforcement of the domestic courts’ judgments, and awarded the amounts, in euros, shown in the table below. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Pecuniary damage Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Aleksandr Popov v. Russia 3,677 3,900    135 Furman v. Russia 750 2,000   Khvorostina and Others v. Russia   3,900 (each) 145 (jointly) Donichenko v. Ukraine   1,200           ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.