CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFF12F1F { width:86.15pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s79893CFE { width:99.49pt; display:inline-block } .sE95971D4 { width:284.9pt; display:inline-block } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA306BFD7 { width:98.15pt; display:inline-block } .s8E5B5BF2 { width:66.16pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s6F98B3BF { width:72.78pt; display:inline-block } .sD87F43E3 { width:35.91pt; display:inline-block } .sB58CDBFC { width:51.45pt; display:inline-block } .sF68D27F { width:89.42pt; display:inline-block } .s59E9B071 { width:139.48pt; display:inline-block } .s135228D6 { width:80.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA6278F58 { width:2.15pt; display:inline-block } .s2CD641CD { width:36.13pt; display:inline-block } .s2FDED807 { width:28.82pt; display:inline-block } .s83FAB5E8 { width:56.12pt; display:inline-block } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s3DCF6A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s3D964D38 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s1F58F73B { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s1BC37704 { width:282.19pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF497CE4F { width:77.91pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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   338 24.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, Romania, Russia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 22 Chamber judgments, none of which 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Da Luz Domingues Ferreira v. Belgium (application no. 50049/99) The applicant, Ramiro Da Luz Domingues Ferreira, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1957 and lives in Belgium.   The cases concern the alleged unfairness of proceedings in which the applicant was convicted in February 1994 of incitement to immorality, procuring, drug trafficking, threatening behaviour and theft, and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, increased to six years by the Liège Court of Appeal in June 1994. Having been imprisoned in Luxembourg in February 1994, the applicant was absent on the date of his conviction. He was likewise unable to appear before the Court of Appeal, probably because he had been imprisoned in Germany.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that he had been convicted in absentia without appearing before the Belgian courts and that he had been denied the right to apply to have his conviction set aside.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the refusal by the Liège Court of Appeal to reopen the proceedings conducted in the applicant’s absence. However, the Court considered that it had not disproportionate for the Court of Appeal to hold the hearing without the applicant being present and to convict him in absentia , seeing that his lack of diligence had contributed to bringing about a situation in which he had been prevented from taking part and presenting his case. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 67189/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Ivan Angelov Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Dobrich (Bulgaria). At the material time he was a priest in Dobrich.   The applicant complained of the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for rape, following which he had been sentenced in April 1995 to four years and two months’ imprisonment. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings, which had lasted approximately seven years and 11 months. As no claim for just satisfaction was submitted, the Court considered that no award should be made to the applicant under that head. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kuyumdzhiyan v. Bulgaria (no. 77147/01)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Rafi Hrant Kuyumdzhiyan, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   In 1969 the State sold a flat formerly owned by a member of Mr Kuyumdzhiyan’s family but which had been nationalised. In May 1992 the applicant brought proceedings against the new owner and the municipality of Plovdiv stating that the new owner had obtained the flat abusively, that the sale had therefore been unlawful and should be declared null and void.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Kuyumdzhiyan complained about the length of the proceedings, and that, as a result, his alleged title to the flat had become more precarious. He further relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 on account of the proceedings having lasted eight years and almost nine months at three instances and there having been no effective remedy. It further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. Mr Kuyumdzhiyan was awarded EUR 2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Two violations of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 Navushtanov v. Bulgaria (no. 57847/00)   No violation of Article 3 The applicant, Ivan Radkov Navushtanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Velingrad (Bulgaria).   In October 1999 Mr Navushtanov was charged with a series of burglaries and detained on remand. He was subsequently convicted as charged and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of five years.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his detention in the Velingrad investigation detention facility and Pazardzhik Prison. He also relied on Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   Observing that Mr Navushtanov had been detained in the Velingrad detention facility for no more than four months and in Pazardzhik Prison for two and a half months and, in particular, that he had not complained about his detention having had an adverse affect on his physical or mental health in either facility, the Court concluded that the detention conditions had not gone beyond the threshold of severity required for finding a violation of Article 3. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 on account of his detention in either facility.   The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the applicant not having been promptly brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and a further violation of the same article on account of the authorities’ failure to justify his continued detention. The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the limited scope and nature of the judicial control of lawfulness of the applicant’s detention and a violation of Article 5 § 5 on account of his not having had available an enforceable right to compensation for being a victim of arrest or detention. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. Mr   Navushtanov was awarded EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Paudicio v. Italy (no. 77606/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Camillo Paudicio, is an Italian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Naples (Italy).   The application concerns criminal proceedings in which Mr Paudicio’s neighbours were accused of breaching town-planning regulations and an order was sought for the demolition of a stable exceeding the volume for which planning permission had been granted.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained of the damage resulting from his inability to obtain the demolition of the building erected by his neighbours. In addition, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that it had been impossible to secure the enforcement of the final judgments in which the criminal courts had ordered the demolition.   The Court considered that the local authorities’ refusal or failure to demolish the building in question had no legal basis in domestic law, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint brought under Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 7 § 1 Dragotoniu and Militaru-Pidhorni v. Romania (nos. 77193/01 and 77196/01) The applicants, Nicolae Dragatoniu and Ioan Militaru-Pidhorni, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1948 respectively and live in Timişoara (Romania). At the material time the applicants were employed at a private bank in Timişoara, the first applicant as chief accountant and the second as manager.   In January 1995 both applicants were detained pending trial for offences including accepting bribes, and in February 1996 they were each sentenced to one year and one month’s imprisonment. Their sentences were ultimately increased to three years.   The applicants complained, in particular, that they had been convicted on account of acts which, at the time of their commission, had not constituted an offence under national or international law, in breach of Article 7 § 1 (no punishment without law). They asserted that the offence of accepting bribes required the perpetrator to be a civil servant or an official or employee of a State-owned company, whereas they were employees of a private bank.   Observing that there was no legal precedent for treating employees of a bank as “civil servants” and “other employees” with regard to the offence of accepting bribes, the Court noted that it was difficult, if not impossible, for the applicants to have known that they could have faced a criminal penalty for the acts in question at the time they had carried them out. The Court considered that, on the basis of the Criminal Code as in force at the material time, proceedings for accepting bribes could be brought only in respect of persons who discharged duties within a public body and not within a private commercial company. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 7 § 1. It awarded the applicants EUR 3,000 each for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dunayev v. Russia (no. 70142/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Valentin Andreyevich Dunayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1938 and lives in the Tula Region (Russia).   The application concerned proceedings in which Mr Dunayev sued the Russian Ministry of Finance and the Russian Ministry of Defence for compensation in connection with military operations in Chechnya. He claimed, in particular, that property belonging to him in Grozny had been destroyed during an attack by federal forces in January 1995.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained that, on appeal, he had been denied an opportunity to file written pleadings.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr   Dunayev EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 1,570.54 Russian roubles (RUR) (approximately EUR 45) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Ignatov v. Russia (no. 27193/02)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 The applicant, Mikhail Vyacheslavovich Ignatov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. At the time of his arrest he was a high-ranking police officer, working in the Central Police Division for the Fight against Organised Crime.   On 4 May 2001 Mr Ignatov was arrested on suspicion of incitement to bribery and fraud and placed in temporary confinement. Three days later he was detained on remand. Ultimately, on 18 August 2003, he was found guilty of aggravated abuse of position and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He was released in December 2003.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complained that his detention on remand had been unlawful, excessively long and that its lawfulness had not been pronounced “speedily”, his appeals against two of the detention orders not even having been examined.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the domestic courts not having given any reasons for their decisions or set time-limits on Mr   Ignatov’s detention on remand from 12 July to 27 December 2002. However, the Court found that there was nothing to suggest that the applicant’s detention on remand from 17   December 2001 to 12   July 2002 and from 27   December 2002 to 18 August 2003 had been unlawful or invalid, the reasons having been: the gravity of the charges against him and, if released, the possibility of him absconding or obstructing the examination of the pending case. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention on remand during those two periods. The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length of his detention, which had lasted two years, three months and 15 days. Lastly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of delays in examining the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention and failure to consider the substance of his appeals against two of the detention orders. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   The applicant not having submitted a claim for just satisfaction, the Court made no such award. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Mishketkul and Others v. Russia (no. 36911/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Sergey Aleksandrovich Mishketkul, Georgiy Aleksandrovich Georgobiani and Tatyana Ivanovna Turuntayeva are Russian nationals who were born in 1977, 1975 and 1948, respectively. Mr Mishketkul and Mr Georgobiani live in Noginsk (Russia). Ms   Turuntayeva lives in Moscow.   The application concerned the first two applicant’s complaint about the length of their pre-trial detention following their arrest in April 2001 on charges of theft from Ms   Turuntayeva’s flat.   The first two applicants relied, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). All three applicants further relied on Article 6 (right to fair trial within a reasonable time), Ms   Turuntayeva notably complaining that the domestic courts had found the first two applicants guilty and, despite their innocence, awarded her compensation.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning the first two applicants’ pre-trial detention which had lasted nearly 20 months and awarded them EUR 5,000, each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Pshevecherskiy v. Russia (no. 28957/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Yuriy Avgustovich Pshevecherskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow.   In May 1999 Mr Pshevecherskiy was arrested on suspicion of child trafficking and organised crime, notably of having assisted several pregnant Russian women to obtain visas and travel to the United States where they had given birth and put their babies up for adoption. He had allegedly received up to USD   15,000 (approximately EUR 11,000) for each child. He was placed in custody on the grounds that he was charged with serious criminal offences and was liable to pervert the course of justice. He was released in April 2002 and the criminal proceedings against him discontinued in December 2003.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Pshevecherskiy complained about the lawfulness and length of his pre-trial detention.   The Court concluded that the Russian authorities had reproduced the same formulaic reasons based on the gravity of the charges against Mr Pshevecherskiy and had failed to sufficiently justify his continued detention or to consider alternative “preventive measures”. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. The applicant was awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Radchikov v. Russia (no. 65582/01)   Violation of Article 6 The applicant, Valeriy Grigoriyevich Radchikov, was a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lived in Moscow. Following his death on 31 January 2001 his daughters decided to pursue the application.   In April 1997 criminal proceedings were brought against Mr Radchikov on suspicion, in particular, of masterminding the murder of his business rivals. In January 2000 the Military Court of the Moscow District examined the case and acquitted the applicant and his co-accused due to lack of evidence. However, in December 2000, the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for a fresh investigation. In April 2001 the prosecution discontinued the case against the applicant following his death.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), Mr Radchikov complained about the quashing of his acquittal by way of supervisory review.   Finding that the quashing of Mr Radchikov’s acquittal had not intended to correct a fundamental judicial error but had rather been used in order to obtain a rehearing and fresh determination of the case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6. The Court further held, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. The Court awarded Mr Radchikov’s daughters, jointly, EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Tuleshov and Others v. Russia (no. 32718/02)   Violation of Article 8 The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Marx in the Saratov Region (Russia). They are Maksut Netkaliyevich Tuleshov and Aslganym Kalikovna Tuleshova, their two sons, Viktor Maksutovich Tuleshov and Sergey Maksutovich Tuleshov, and Kalik Isayev, Mrs   Tuleshova’s father.   The case concerned the applicants’ eviction in October 2003 from a house which had been purchased and renovated by the first applicant to provide a home for the whole family but which was unlawfully sold through a court administered tender procedure.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complained about their eviction without adequate compensation or replacement housing.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the authorities’ failure to pay adequate compensation. The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 on account of the uncertainty the applicants had suffered about whether they would receive substitute housing and the limited possibilities for them to rent or buy due to the inadequate compensation, only paid about one year after the eviction. The applicants were awarded, jointly, EUR 18,350 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Viktor Konovalov v. Russia (no. 43626/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Viktor Aleksandrovich Konovalov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow.   The case concerned Mr Konovalov’s complaint that his car, seized due to a breach of customs regulations, had been sold by a bailiff when his appeal was still pending.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Konovalov complained that the sale of his car had been unlawful.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the Customs Office’s and bailiff’s actions not having been in accordance with the law. As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make an award in that connection. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 Vladimir Solovyev v. Russia (no. 2708/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Vladimir Viktorovich Solovyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Yekaterinburg (Russia).   The case concerned Mr Solovyev’s arrest and remand in custody on charges of, in particular, causing severe bodily injuries for which he was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.   Relying on, in particular, Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Solovyev complained about the unlawfulness and length of his detention on remand. Under Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) he further complained that appeals against his detention orders had either not been examined promptly or not at all and that neither he nor his lawyer had had the opportunity to attend hearings which reviewed his continued detention. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) on account of the domestic authorities not having given any reasons for their decisions or set time-limits on the applicant’s detention on remand from 13   November to 15   December 2002. However, the Court found that there had been nothing to suggest that the applicant’s detention on remand from 1   July to 13   November 2002 and from 15   December 2002 to 10   July 2003 had been unlawful or invalid and therefore found, unanimously, that there had been no violation of the same article as concerned those two periods. The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 on account of the unreasonable length of Mr   Solovyev’s detention pending trial, it having lasted almost two years and nine months, and the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective review of that detention. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings, which had lasted five years and ten months. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   The Court awarded Mr Solovyev EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   780 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Davut Miçooğulları v. Turkey (no. 6045/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   The applicant, Davut Miçooğulları, is a Turkish national, born in 1928 and living in Tur (Turkey). He was the owner of a plot of land in the district of Çiğdede in Samandağ (Hatay).   He complained that he was deprived of his property without receiving any compensation, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and alleged that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the proceedings before the national courts (six years, two months and seven days).   The Court noted that the applicant had received no compensation concerning the transfer of his property to the State and that the Government had provided no explanation justifying the absence of compensation. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the excessive length of the proceedings. (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:   Milašinović v. Croatia (no. 41751/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Ana Milašinović, is a Croatian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Karlovac (Croatia).   The case concerned proceedings in which the applicant, having relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act, had sought damages from the State after her three business premises had been blown up by unknown perpetrators. The proceedings were stayed on 3 February 1996 under the 1996 Amendment to the Act. They resumed only after the new legislation had entered into force in July 2003. Following a constitutional complaint, it was found on 25   November 2004 that the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and right of access to a court had been violated. It ordered the first-instance court to give a decision in the applicant’s case within a year and awarded her compensation. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 (access to court) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) that the enactment of the 1996 Amendment had violated her right of access to a court. She argued, in particular, that the amount of compensation had been insufficient and significantly lower than amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases. 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. Mrs Milašinović was awarded EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aslan v. Romania (no. 32494/03) Păun v. Romania (no. 9405/02)   Todicescu v. Romania (no. 18419/02) The applicants are Romanian nationals.   They are the former owners of real property which was nationalised or confiscated by the State. The applicants brought actions for recovery of possession of the property and sought to have set aside the relevant contracts of sale concluded by the State.   The applicants alleged that the sale of their flats to third parties, which had been upheld by a judicial decision and for which they had received no compensation, had amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the cases of Aslan and Păun 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 Romania was to return the property in question to the applicants within three months from the date on which the judgments became final. It also awarded them the amounts indicated in euros in the table below.     Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Aslan v. Romania 8,000   Păun v. Romania 5,000 900 Todicescu v. Romania 5,000     (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aslaner v. Turkey (no. 23903/02) Yalman and Türkmen v. Turkey (no. 23914/02) The applicants are Turkish nationals.   The cases concern the expropriation of land belonging to the applicants for the purpose of building a motorway.   The applicants complained, in particular, of the delay by the State in paying them the additional compensation for the expropriation and of the inadequate rate of interest for delayed payment in view of the very high rate of inflation in Turkey.   They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and 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 separately the complaint under Article 6. It awarded Mr   Aslaner EUR 10,500 for pecuniary damage and Ms Yalman and Mr Türkmen jointly EUR   6,500 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained, in particular, about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings.   Butković v. Croatia (no. 32264/03)   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) 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.