CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 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 } .s41DFD458 { width:75.47pt; display:inline-block } .sEE962E5F { width:108.81pt; display:inline-block } .s5B9F672B { width:120.81pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sC3E2AEC5 { width:44.12pt; display:inline-block } .s5131C2D4 { width:117.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; 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 } .sD87BB0A7 { height:11.45pt } .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 } .sADFD8D89 { width:9.4pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; 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   355 31.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Croatia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 20 Chamber judgments, which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Bistrovic v. Croatia (application no 25774/05) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Josip Bistrović and his wife Jasenka Bistrović, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1955, respectively. They live in Gojanec (Croatia).   The case dealt with expropriation proceedings, with a view to building a motorway, concerning part of the applicants’ farming land. The applicants claimed that only partial expropriation of their property meant that they, as farmers, would no longer have use of the house and the small area around it, mainly due to lack of vehicle access to the property. In addition, they argued that the motorway’s construction in such close proximity to their house and inadequate protection from noise and pollution would significantly decrease the economic value of the remaining property.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that they had not received the full market value for their expropriated property and that the expropriation proceedings had not taken into account the significantly decreased value of their remaining property. They further relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   The Court noted that the domestic authorities had not taken into account the applicants’ arguments when fixing the amount of compensation and that the report which served as a basis for assessing the effects of the motorway on the remaining property had been drawn up without the expert ever having visited the site. The Court therefore found that, by failing to establish all relevant factors for compensation and, in particular, to allow for the decrease in value of the remaining estate, Croatia had failed to strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the requirement of protecting the applicants’ individual property rights. The European Court of Human Rights therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants, jointly, 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,800 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Miholapa v. Latvia (no. 61655/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Raisa Miholapa, is an ex-national of the former Soviet Union and a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia. She lives in Riga.   The applicant owned a flat in a block of flats in Riga, which was put up for compulsory auction on account of non-payment of municipal taxes. The purchaser of the flat brought two sets of proceedings against the applicant. The first set of proceedings resulted in the applicant’s eviction; in the second set of proceedings, in January 1999, the applicant was ordered in absentia to pay damages.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant alleged that her right to a fair hearing had been violated as she had not been duly informed of the second set of proceedings against her before the Zemgale District Court.   The Court considered that the Zemgale District Court had not shown proof of sufficient diligence and had not done all that could be reasonably expected of it in order to summon the applicant to appear. It therefore held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court considered that there was no need to make an award under that head. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gładczak v. Poland (no. 14255/02)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Polakowski v. Poland (no. 4657/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Roman Gładczak and Krzysztof Polakowski, are Polish nationals who were born in 1961 and 1964, respectively. They live in Gdynia (Poland).   Both applicants were arrested and remanded in custody in October 1996 on suspicion of having committed armed robbery as members of an organised criminal gang. They were convicted in December 1999 of, in particular, armed robbery, kidnapping and extortion. Mr   Gładczak was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment and a fine and Mr Polakowski to seven years and 6 months’ imprisonment and a fine. Ultimately, Gdańsk Court of Appeal ordered their release in July 2002. It appears that the criminal proceedings against both applicants are still pending.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), they complained about the length of their detention on remand, which lasted over three years and one month for Mr Gładczak and over four years and six months for Mr Polakowski.   As concerned Mr Gładczak, the Court observed that the proceedings had been of considerable complexity, involving organised crime and a large number of defendants,but that the hearings had nonetheless been held regularly and at short intervals. Furthermore, the Court could not overlook the applicant’s obstructive behaviour, witnesses notably alleged having been threatened, which had had a negative impact on the progress of the trial. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning Mr   Gładczak.   As concerned Mr Polakowski, the Court concluded that, even having taken into account the particular difficulties in dealing with a case concerning organised crime, the grounds given by the domestic authorities had not been “relevant and sufficient” to justify holding the applicant in detention for over four years and six months. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation in the case of Mr   Polakowski and awarded him EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Grozdanoski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 21510/03) The applicant, Nikola Grozdanoski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Ohrid (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).   The application concerned Mr Grozdanoski’s complaint about the unfairness of proceedings in connection with a loan agreement made in December 1993 with a company, “Makbanka-BS” A.D.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Grozdanoski alleged, in particular, that the proceedings before the Supreme Court had violated the principle of equality of arms as he had not been given an opportunity to comment on the company’s appeal on points of law and the public prosecutor’s request for protection of legality.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the principle of equality of arms under Article 6 § 1 and that there was no need to examine the remaining complaint under that article. The Court awarded Mr Grozdanoski EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Lizanets v. Ukraine (no. 6725/03)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Georgiy Ivanovych Lizanets, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Mukacheve (Ukraine).   In February 1997 he applicant was charged with corruption and detained on remand. He was released in August 1997 and criminal proceedings against him were ultimately terminated in August 1998 for lack of evidence. Following his release the applicant had a nervous breakdown.   He was awarded the equivalent of EUR 9,600 and then of EUR 13,000 in compensation in final and binding judgments, which were quashed. Ultimately EUR 1,620 was awarded in another judgment of 5   April 2002, which has still to be executed.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained about the quashing of final judgments in his favour, the length of the proceedings and the non-execution of the judgments given in his favour.   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 concerning the reopening of proceedings and the non-enforcement of a judgment of 5   April 2002, and that there was no need to examine the complaint about the overall length of the proceedings.   The Court awarded Mr Lizanets EUR 11,380 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and held that the State should pay the EUR 1,620 still owed to him. (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:   Just satisfaction Gianni and Others v. Italy (no. 35941/03)   Friendly settlement The applicants, nine Italian nationals who live in Villanova di Guidonia and Rome, were the owners of a plot of 6,398 square metres of building land in Rome.   They alleged that the occupation of their land by the authorities, without a formal expropriation order being made or compensation being given, had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In a judgment of 30 March 2006 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   In its judgment on just satisfaction delivered today, the Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases, following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicants are to be paid EUR 1,000,000. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Brazdă and Maliţa v. Romania (no. 75297/01) Horia Jean Ionescu v. Romania (no. 11116/02) In these two cases the applicants, who are all Romanian nationals, alleged a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of their inability to enjoy the use of the flats of which they were the recognised owners, as a result of the sale of the properties by the State to third parties. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and ruled that Romania must return the properties in question to the applicants, failing which the State would have to pay EUR 100,000 jointly to Mrs Brazdă and Mrs Maliţa for pecuniary damage and EUR 45,000 to Mr Ionescu. The Court also awarded the applicants the amounts indicated in euros in the table below.     Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Brazdă and Maliţa 5,000 1,800 Horia Jean Ionescu 6,000 500   (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Maria Peter and Others v. Romania (no. 54369/00) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Maria Peter, Laszlo Gereb, Ilona Zsombori, Lenke Margit Kristo and Andrei Peter, are Romanian nationals who live in Miercurea-Ciuc (Romania).   The applicants complained under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the failure by the authorities to execute a final judicial decision granting them possession of a plot of land. They also complained of their inability to enjoy their title to the land in question, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 and found that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Söğüt v. Turkey (nos 16593/03 and 16600/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Muhammed Fesih Söğüt and Zülfikar Söğüt, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1976 and 1963 respectively and live in Batman (Turkey).   Both applicants were sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for membership of the illegal armed organisation Hizbullah . Their convictions were upheld by the Court of Cassation in November 2002.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation on account of the fact that they had been unable to reply to the opinion of the public prosecutor.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As the applicants had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court considered it unnecessary to make an award under that head. (The judgment is 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. The remainder of the applications in the cases of Ortner v. Austria and A. and E.   Riis v. Norway were declared inadmissible.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ortner v. Austria (no. 2884/04) Riihikallio and Others v. Finland (no. 25072/02) Leonidopoulos v. Greece (no. 17930/05) Papasteriades v. Greece (no. 2189/05) A. and E. Riis v. Norway (no. 9042/04) Ispan v. Romania (no. 67710/01) Dika v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 13270/02) Mihajloski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 44221/02) Stojanov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 34215/02)   ***   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.