CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 juin 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4722ECCB { width:358.91pt; display:inline-block } .s80D91CF4 { width:394.26pt; display:inline-block } .s3AA8BBA7 { width:284.18pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s295C11BC { width:166.88pt; display:inline-block } .sE15938B { width:65.47pt; display:inline-block } .s84202A69 { width:152.15pt; display:inline-block } .s9FD0955A { width:29.45pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s79DDB48F { width:102.14pt; display:inline-block } .sBC4BC80B { width:220.25pt; display:inline-block } .sCDA4AE1F { width:30.13pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s8E007A25 { width:327.58pt; display:inline-block } .s9DBFF38B { width:264.83pt; display:inline-block } .sA8792699 { width:43.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7774D482 { width:92.83pt; display:inline-block } .sB63F02DE { width:46.79pt; display:inline-block } .sAB3CDBE7 { width:242.22pt; display:inline-block } .s82CC5F87 { width:136.2pt; display:inline-block } .sBF339177 { width:227.55pt; display:inline-block } .s738D413A { width:205.58pt; display:inline-block } .sA423A387 { width:257.52pt; display:inline-block } .s568049D9 { width:65.45pt; display:inline-block } .sFEB2AF9D { width:178.84pt; 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   393 7.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, France, Italy, Moldova, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, the United Kingdom and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights today notified in writing the following 25 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.     Kukkonen v. Finland (application no. 57793/00) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Hannu Kukkonen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki. He is a carpenter by profession.   In January 1994 Mr Kukkonen had an accident at work for which he was paid an occupational injury pension until 31 May 1996. After that date, the insurance company refused to continue his pension, finding that his working capacity had only been reduced by less than 10%.   Mr Kukkonen’s application concerned the proceedings in which he claimed that he was entitled to an accident pension from 1 June 1996 and notably the fact that, having familiarised himself with his case-file, he had found a note which had not been sent to him during the proceedings before the Insurance Court.   Relying on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Kukkonen alleged that he had been denied a fair hearing on account of the Insurance Court’s failure to provide him with an opportunity to comment on that note.   Finding that the note in question had not represented evidence or a reasoned opinion on the merits of the applicant’s appeal which could have influenced the Insurance Court’s decision, the European Court of Human Rights was not persuaded that there had been any procedural unfairness. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)                       No violation of Article 11                  No violation of Article 11 taken together with Article 10 Parti Nationaliste Basque - Organisation Régionale D’Iparralde v. France (no. 71251/01) The applicant is the Iparralde regional branch of the Basque Nationalist Party ( Parti nationaliste basque – Organisation régionale d’Iparralde , or Euzko Alderdi Jeltzalea – Iparraldeko Erakundea in Basque), an association which has its registered office in Bayonne (France).   According to its constitution, the party is a regional branch of the EAJ-PNB ( Euzko Alderdi Jeltzalea – Partido Nacionalista Vasco , a political party under Spanish law whose aim is to defend and promote Basque nationalism). The constitution states that the party shall adopt the “national ideology of the EAJ-PNB” and the “traditional principles and modus operandi of the EAJ-PNB”.   In order to be allowed to receive funds, and in particular contributions from the EAJ ‑ PNB, the applicant party formed a funding association in accordance with the 1988 Law on financial transparency in political life. In September 1998 it made an application for approval of the association, which was rejected by the National Commission on Election Campaign Accounts and Political Funding (the CCFP) on the ground that the 1988 Law prohibited the funding of a political party by a foreign legal entity.   The CCFP also dismissed a subsequent request by the applicant party to reconsider its decision. The party then applied to the Conseil d’Etat , which rejected its application in a judgment of 8 December 2000.   The applicant party complained of the refusal of its request for approval of the funding association it had set up on the ground that most of its funding took the form of financial support from the Spanish Basque Nationalist Party. It relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).   The Court considered that the refusal of the request for approval of the funding association amounted to interference with the exercise by the applicant party of the rights guaranteed by Article 11. The interference in question had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder.   As to whether the interference had been necessary, the Court considered that the fact that political parties were not permitted to receive funds from foreign political parties was not in itself incompatible with Article 11 of the Convention. In that connection it pointed out in particular that, while the party could not receive financial assistance from the Spanish Basque Nationalist Party, it could nevertheless fund its political activities with the help of members’ contributions and donations from individuals – including those from outside France – which it could collect through a financial agent or a funding association approved on the basis of a new application. Furthermore, there was nothing to prevent it from receiving funds from other French political parties or from taking advantage of the system of public funding put in place by the French legislature.   In conclusion, the Court found that the measure in question did not have a disproportionate impact on the ability of the applicant party to conduct its political activities. While the prohibition on receiving contributions from the Spanish Basque Nationalist Party had an effect on the party’s finances, the situation in which it found itself as a result was no different from that of any small political party facing a shortage of funds.   Consequently, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 11 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention. It also considered that there was no need to examine the case under Article 3 of Protocol No.   1. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Just satisfaction   Struck out Capone v. Italy (no. 20236/02)   Dominici v. Italy (no. 64111/00) In these two cases the applicants, all three of whom are Italian nationals, alleged that the occupation of their land by the authorities, without any formal expropriation order being made or compensation being paid, had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In judgments of 6 December and 15 November 2005 the Court held in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   In both cases, the Court today took note of the agreements concluded between the applicants and the Italian Government. Observing that the agreements were fair and that examination of the applications was no longer justified, the Court decided to strike them out of its list of cases. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 5 Guţu v. Moldova (no. 20289/02) Violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 8 The applicant, Tatiana Guţu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1952 and lives in Cojuşna (Moldova).   The case concerned Ms Guţu’s refusal on 30 December 2001 to go to the local police station with her son, 12 years old at the time, who was suspected of theft, and the subsequent proceedings against her for disobeying the lawful orders of a police officer.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms Guţu complained that, when arrested, the police officers had subjected her to degrading and humiliating treatment by throwing her to the muddy ground and handcuffing her. She further complained that, once at the police station, she had been placed in a dirty cell for approximately 12 hours without food, water or bedding and, in breach of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), without any legal grounds. The next day she alleged she had been taken straight to court without having had the opportunity to change her muddy clothes. Also relying on Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleged that, subsequently, she had not been summonsed to appear at a hearing before the Chişinău Regional Court and that her right to be presumed innocent had been breached in that she had not been allowed to put forward witnesses and had not been provided with a lawyer during the proceedings. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), she complained that, on 30 December 2001, police officers had, without authorisation, entered her garden by climbing over a fence. Finally, she complained under Article 13 that she had had no effective remedy in respect of the breaches of Articles 3, 5 and 8.   The Court found that Ms Guţu had failed to give evidence to support her allegations that she was taken to court in muddy clothes and that the suffering caused by her detention conditions had not attained the required threshold of severity. The Court therefore declared inadmissible Ms Guţu’s complaints under Article 3 and Article 13 taken together with Article 3. The complaint under Article 6 § 2 was also declared inadmissible.   The Court found that, in accordance with Article 129, the applicant having been taken forcibly to the police station could not be considered as “lawful” because she had not been summonsed. Furthermore no investigative measures at all could be taken in respect of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant’s son unless criminal proceedings were formally brought. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 . The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of it not having been shown that the applicant had been summonsed to the appeal hearing and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 3. Noting that, when arresting the applicant, the police officers had not been intervening to stop a criminal offence and had not been in pursuit of a suspect and bearing in mind the principle of inviolability of the home, the Court held that the interference complained of under Article 8 had not been “in accordance with the law”. There had therefore been a violation of Article 8 in respect of the applicant’s right to respect for her home. Finally, the Court considered that it had not been shown that there had been effective remedies in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 5 and 8 and therefore found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   13 taken together with Article 5 and Article 13 taken together with Article   8. Mrs Guţu was awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Malahov v. Moldova (no. 32268/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Antonina Malahov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1942 and lives in Chişinău. She is a pensioner.   The application concerned the refusal, due to non-payment of court fees, by the domestic courts to examine Ms Malahov’s case in which, following her retirement, she claimed payment of fees owed to her by the company she had worked for in Chişinău. The applicant had asked for the court fees to be waived on account of her poor financial situation.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Malahov complained about the obligation to pay the court fees and the refusal of the Court of Appeal to examine her case because of her failure to pay those fees.   The Court concluded that the domestic courts had failed to carry out a proper assessment of Ms Malahov’s ability to pay the court fees or to respond to her claim that she was entitled to an exemption. Moreover, the court fees required had clearly been excessive in comparison with the applicant’s resources at the time. The Court therefore considered that imposing court fees had amounted to a disproportionate restriction on her right of access to a court and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It also held, unanimously, that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13. It awarded Mrs   Malahov EUR 1,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)                        Just satisfaction Baybaşin v. the Netherlands (no.13600/02)   Struck   out The applicant, Hüseyin Baybaşin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Baybaşin complained about the weekly routine strip-searches to which he was subjected during his stay in a maximum security prison.   In a judgment of 6 July 2006 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 and considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   The Court noted that, when it had adopted that principal judgment, the applicant had already brought domestic civil proceedings in tort against the Netherlands State in which he claimed, amongst other things, compensation for non-pecuniary damage on account of having suffered inhuman and degrading treatment in prison due to the weekly routine strip searches. Those proceedings are still pending.   In its judgment on just satisfaction delivered today, the Court dismissed, unanimously, the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses as the applicant had been granted legal aid under the Netherlands domestic legal aid scheme for the proceedings under the Convention. As regards the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage, the Court found that there was no reason to believe that the applicant’s civil action did not stand a reasonable chance of success. It therefore found that, in the light of Article   37   §   1   (c), it was not justified to continue its examination of the question concerning the applicant’s claim for compensation of non-pecuniary damage as it would imply an adjournment pending a final domestic decision. Accordingly, the Court decided to strike this remainder of the application out of its list of cases. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Larin and Larina v. Russia (no. 74286/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Mikhail Dimitrievich Larin and Lyubov Demyanovna Larina, are Russian nationals who were born in 1926 and 1934 and live in the Vladimir region of Russia.   They complained that the proceedings they had brought concerning the calculation of and increase in their retirement pension had been unfair, on account of the dismissal of their appeal on points of law in their absence. They relied in particular on Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   In view of the nature of the proceedings and what had been at stake for the applicants, the fact that they had been unable to receive a copy of the opposing party’s observations before the judgment was delivered and to reply to those observations in writing or at the hearing, the Court considered that their right to adversarial proceedings had been breached. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As the applicants had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court saw no reason to make an award under that head. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 Nurmagomedov v. Russia (no. 30138/02)   Violation of Article 34 The applicant, Tagir Suleymanovich Nurmagomedov, is a Russian national who was born in 1961. He is currently serving a custodial sentence in Yemva (Russia).   In April 1991 Mr Nurmagomedov was convicted, in particular, of aggravated robbery for which he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment in a correctional colony. He was granted home leave in March 1994 and, having found his family in a precarious situation, he decided not to return to the colony but to work and support his family. As a result, criminal proceedings were brought against him for evading punishment and, in November 2000, he was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to run consecutively with the time he had left to serve from the previous conviction. Following new legislation in which the Criminal Code provided for more lenient punishment regarding aggravated robbery, Mr   Nurmagomedov filed an application for supervisory review of the 1991 judgment.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr   Nurmagomedov alleged, in particular, that the post-conviction proceedings for bringing his sentence into conformity with the new Criminal Code had not been fair or public. He further complained that he had been prevented from sending his application to the Court by officials at the correctional colony, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition)   The Court found that the proceedings which the applicant complained about fell outside the scope of the application of Article 6 and therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of that provision.   The Court further found that, at the relevant time, Russia’s Penal Code had not treated correspondence with the Court as privileged and penitentiary officials had even been formally directed not to send complaints to certain bodies or organisations. Furthermore, the Court could not see any other explanation why the applicant had sent his application through “informal channels”, thus risking detention in the disciplinary wing, unless he had been unable to send his application through the colony’s correspondence office. Accordingly, the Court found that the Russian authorities had attempted to discourage, even prevent, the applicant from pursuing a Convention remedy and held, unanimously, that there had been a hindrance to the applicant’s right of individual petition under Article 34. Mr   Nurmagomedov was awarded EUR 500 in respect of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 OAO Plodovaya Kompaniya v. Russia (no. 1641/02)   No violation of Article 6 The applicant, OAO Plodovaya Kompaniya, formerly a closed joint-stock company registered with the Russian State, converted in 1998 into an open joint-stock company.   In January 1992 the applicant company was called the “Foreign Trade Stock Company ‘Soyuzplodoimport’”, its memorandum of association providing that it was the sucessor to the State Foreign Trade Agency “Soyuzpolodimport” whose assets included trademarks to a number of brands of alcohol (such as Vodka Stolichnaya and Vodka Moskovskaya).   The case concerned the applicant company’s complaint about the unfairness of supervisory review proceedings before the commercial courts which had resulted in their claim to the assets of its alleged predecessor coporation, notably the alcohol trademarks, having been declared null and void.   The applicant company relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), in conjunction with Article 6 §   1,   and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that, at no stage of the domestic proceedings, had there been a judicial decision to establish the applicant company’s claim to “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of that provision. The applicant company had been defending a claim of corporate succession which had had no basis in domestic law: it followed that it had not had a “civil right” recognisable under domestic law. Accordingly, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6. The Court further held unanimously that no separate issues arose under Articles 13 and 14. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia (no. 14939/03) Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 The applicant, Sergey Aleksandrovich Zolotukhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Voronezh (Russia).   The case concerned proceedings against Mr Zolotukhin for disorderly conduct in 2002.   Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), Mr   Zolotukhin complained that, after he had already served three days’ detention for committing disorderly acts, he had been re-detained and tried again for the same offence.   The Court found that the applicant had been tried and prosecuted twice concerning an offence for which he had already been convicted and served a term of detention and, accordingly, held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. Mr   Zolotukhin was awarded EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 13 Smirnov v. Russia (no. 71362/01)   The applicant, Mikhail Vladimirovich Smirnov, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in St Petersburg. He is a lawyer, and at the relevant time he was a member of the St   Petersburg United Bar Association.   The case concerned Mr Smirnov’s allegations that his flat had been searched and numerous documents and the central unit of his computer seized, with a view to gaining access to his clients’ computerised files and to obtaining evidence against them. His clients were suspected of participating in organised crime.   He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court was satisfied that procedure was followed as regards the search of the applicant’s flat and that it pursued the legitimate aims of furthering the interests of public safety, preventing crime and protecting the rights and freedoms of others. However, noting that the applicant himself had not been suspected of any criminal offence, the Court considered that the search had been carried out without sufficient and relevant grounds or safeguards against interference with professional secrecy, the order’s excessively broad terms giving total freedom to the police to determine what was to be seized. The Court therefore held unanimously that that interference had not been “necessary in a democratic society” and that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Court observed that the applicant’s central computer unit is still being retained by the Russian authorities, that is for over six years. It further noted that retaining the computer not only caused personal inconvenience to the applicant but also hindered his professional activities and even had repercussions on the administration of justice. The Court therefore found that Russia failed to strike a “fair balance” between the demands of general interest and the requirement to protect the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and, unanimously, held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court further found that the applicant did not have an effective remedy for that complaint and held that there had been a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction within the specified time-limit, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make an award in that connection. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Zagorodnikov v. Russia (no. 66941/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Sergey Borisovich Zagorodnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow. He was an investor in Russian Credit, a private bank which is now insolvent and against which he had brought proceedings in 1998 and 1999 to recover his investments.   The case concerned the proceedings with regard to a settlement which the bank and 188,900 of its creditors had requested the Commercial Court of Moscow to ratify. Mr Zagorodnikov disagreed with that settlement, along with 220 others. Access to the court building was restricted throughout the proceedings in the interests of public order and in order to be able to examine the case within a reasonable time   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained that the proceedings before the Commercial Court had not been public and that he had been unable to participate in the hearings before the first-instance court.   The Court, observing that there had been nothing to suggest that the hearings had been beseiged by crowds, considered that the Government had not put forward any argument capable of persuading it that admitting the public to the hearings could have jeopardised public order or affected the length of the proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the applicant’s right to a public hearing.   However, the Court observed that the applicant had pleaded his case and submitted written arguments in the second and third-instance appeal proceedings and that that remedied any unfairness that could have resulted from the belated notice to attend the first-instance proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been no violation of the Article 6 § 1 as regards his right to be present at the hearings before the Commercial Court.   Mr Zagorodnikov 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.)   Murillo Espinosa v. Spain (no. 37938/03)   No violation of Article 2 The applicant, Maria Elena Murillo Espinosa, is a Spanish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Saragossa (Spain).   In February 2000 her thirty-year-old son was found dead with serious burns in a derelict area on the outskirts of Vallirana (Barcelona). An investigation was opened immediately. The autopsy performed by two pathologists from the relevant judicial district concluded that the applicant’s son, who was found to have a high level of alcohol in his blood, had committed suicide after dousing himself in petrol. The cause of death was asphyxia and burns.   The applicant remained convinced that her son’s death was suspicious and requested that the investigation be pursued. In July 2002 the investigating judge discontinued the proceedings on the ground that there was no evidence that an offence had been committed. On an appeal by the applicant, the Barcelona Audencia Provincial upheld the decision to close the case. In June 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed an amparo appeal lodged by the applicant.   The applicant complained of the lack of an effective investigation into the death of her son, who she claimed had been murdered. She relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights declared, unanimously, that the application was admissible in respect of the complaints relating to the lack of an effective investigation, of a fair hearing and of an effective remedy, and declared the remainder inadmissible.   The Court considered that the investigating authorities could be regarded as having acted of their own motion as soon as the case had been brought to their attention. An investigation had been opened immediately and the autopsy report by two pathologists from the relevant judicial district had concluded that no third parties were involved in the victim’s death. That report had been confirmed by the National Toxicology Institute. According to the various reports, the victim had wanted to make sure his suicide was successful by a combination of burning and strangulation. They had described the psychological profile of the applicant’s son, based on statements from close friends, and commented on his pessimism, especially on the night in question when he had specifically talked about the prospect of suicide. The reports had also mentioned that he had been a heavy drinker on nights out and that he had been experiencing financial problems at the relevant time.   The Court further observed that there had been an exhaustive, impartial and in-depth investigation into the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death.   In those circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 and that it did not need to examine separately the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Salt Hiper S.A. v. Spain (no. 25779/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant company, Salt Hiper S.A., is a public limited company with its registered office in Madrid.   In 1992 the company applied to the local authorities for authorisation to set up premises on a business park in the town of Salt (Girona) but the authorities refused and the company brought administrative proceedings against them.   The applicant company alleged that the Supreme Court’s interpretation concerning the admissibility of its appeal on points of law (whilst in 1997 the Supreme Court had declared the company’s appeal on points of law admissible, in a judgment of 28 September 2001 that same court had found its appeal inadmissible) had deprived it of its right of access to a court. It relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant company EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Botmeh and Alami v. the United Kingdom (no. 15187/03)   The applicants, Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami, are Palestinian nationals who were born in 1967 and 1965, respectively. Prior to their prison sentences they lived in Rugby.   On 26 July 1994 a car-bomb exploded outside the Israeli Embassy in London and the following morning a second bomb went off outside the headquarters of a Jewish organisation, also in London. The applicants, allegedly members of or sympathisers with the the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), were arrested and charged with having participated in the conspiracy to make, place, and detonate those bombs. They were convicted in December 1996 and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and recommended for deportation.   Before and during the applicants’ trial, the United Kingdom Security Service had had in their possession evidence from “an agent source” that a terrorist organisation, unconnected to the applicants, had been seeking information about the possibility of bombing the Israeli Embassy. Related intelligence received after the bombing indicated that it had not, in fact, been the work of that terrorist organisation. The document containing that information was not presented by the prosecution to the trial judge.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against them, alleging that the procedure at first instance and before the Court of Appeal had allowed certain relevant evidence to be witheld.   The Court observed that the Court of Appeal had in fact disclosed to the applicants a summary of the information which had been withheld, as well as an account of the events which had resulted in the undisclosed material not having been placed before the trial judge. The applicants had also been given the opportunity to make submissions. Given the extent of that disclosure, the fact that the court was able to consider its impact on the safety of the applicants’ conviction and that the undisclosed material was found by the court to add nothing of significance to what had already been disclosed at trial, the Court considered that the failure to place the undisclosed material before the trial judge was, in the particular circumstances of the case, remedied by the subsequent procedure before the Court of Appeal. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Repetitive cases   In the following   cases the Court reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same isues under the Convention:     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dovguchits v. Russia (no. 2999/03)   Naydenkov v. Russia (no. 43282/02)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Akalinskiy v. Russia (no. 2993/03) Kuznetsova v. Russia (no. 67579/01 Lysenko v. Ukraine (no. 18219/02)   Mavrodiy v. Ukraine (no. 32558/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Gennadiy Kot v. Russia (no. 76542/01)   Struck out   The applicants are five Russian nationals and two Ukrainian nationals.   In the cases of Akalinskiy v. Russia , Dovguchits v. Russia , Kuznetsova v. Russia and Naydenkov v. Russia the applicants complained of the quashing of final judgments given in their favour. The applicants in the other cases, including Mr Dovguchits and Mr Naydenkov, complained that judgments in their favour had either not been enforced in good time or not at all.   They all relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of Mr   Mavrodiy, they also all relied on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Mr   Akalinskiy and Mr Lysenko also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Dovguchits v. Russia and Naydenkov v. Russia .   The Court decided unanimously to strike the case of Gennadiy Kot v. Russia out of the list, the amount due having been paid to the applicant together with compensation for the belated enforcement.   In the remaining cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1, and, with the exception of Mavrodiy v. Ukraine , a further violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     The Court declared that it was not necessary to examine the complaints under Article 13 in the case of Lysenko v. Ukraine , and declared inadmissible the complaint under this article in the case of Akalinskiy v. Russia .   The Court held that the respondent State should pay the judgment debts still owed to the applicants in the cases of Dovguchits v. Russia and   Mavrodiy v. Ukraine .   The sums awarded to the applicants under Article 41 can be found at the end of the judgments. (The judgments are available only in English.)   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 Court declared inadmissible the complaint about the lack of an effective remedy in the Shinkarenko case.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Artemenko v. Ukraine (no. 33983/02) Shinkarenko v. Ukraine (no. 31105/02)   ***   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.