CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 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 } .sA560202F { width:75.44pt; display:inline-block } .s466A6DC9 { width:38.12pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .s7F411F62 { width:114.78pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9A04250C { width:103.46pt; display:inline-block } .s4CA767AF { width:14.8pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB587DA96 { width:167.49pt; display:inline-block } .s24B4985E { width:80.78pt; display:inline-block } .s2FDED807 { width:28.82pt; display:inline-block } .sBF339177 { width:227.55pt; display:inline-block } .s82ABE872 { width:22.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s354EDC95 { width:152.8pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   437 21.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 26 Chamber judgments, of 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 also be found at the end of the press release.   Zhechev v. Bulgaria (application no 57045/00)   Violation of Article 11 The applicant, Peter Zhechev Zhechev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1928 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   Mr Zhechev is the chairman of the association “Civil Society for Bulgarian Interests, National Dignity, Union and Integration – for Bulgaria” whose articles include, in particular, repealing the Bulgarian Constitution of 1991, restoring the monarchy and “opening” the border between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria.   Relying, in particular, on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Zhechev complained about the domestic courts’ refusal to register the association on the ground that its aims were political and incompatible with the Constitution.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that restoring the monarchy or campaigning for change to legal and constitutional structures were not in themselves incompatible with the principles of democracy and that “opening” a border could not jeopardise a country’s integrity or national security. It had not been suggested either that the association would use violent or undemocratic means to achieve its aims.   The Court further observed that associations were not allowed to participate in national, local or European elections and that there was therefore no “pressing social need” to require every association deemed to pursue “political” goals to register as a political party, especially in view of the fact that the exact meaning of that term appeared quite vague under Bulgarian law.   The Court therefore concluded that the reasons given by the domestic authorities to refuse registration of the association chaired by Mr Zhechev had not been relevant or sufficient and that that refusal had had radical consequences for the association in that it had been prevented from commencing any activity. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11. The Court accepted that Mr   Zhechev had sustained non-pecuniary damage but held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient compensation. He was awarded 1,087.50 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Havelka and Others v. Czech Republic (no. 23499/06)   Violation of Article 8 The applicants, Antonín Havelka and his children Šárka Havelková, Tomáš Havelka and Eliška Havelková, are Czech nationals who were born in 1950 and 1992, 1993 and 1994, respectively. Mr Havelka lives in Prague and his children are currently in a public establishment in Radenín (Czech Republic).   After October 1995, when his wife left the family home, Mr   Havelka cared alone for their children and for his wife’s other three minor children. In March 2004 Šárka, Tomáš and Eliška were temporarily placed in a public educational establishment. That measure was definitively extended in June 2004 and April 2005, on the ground that the care provided by Mr   Havelka was worsening and that, on account of his difficult financial position, his flat was no longer connected to the electricity supply and the family was threatened with eviction.   The applicants alleged, in particular, that the State’s decision to take the children into care had infringed their right to respect for family life. They relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court reiterated that the fact that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his or her upbringing did not on its own justify a compulsory measure of removal from the care of the biological parents; there had to exist other circumstances pointing to the “necessity” for such an interference with the parents’ right under Article 8   to have a family life with their child.     Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the decisions to place the children in care had not been supported by sufficient reasons justifying them as proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Notwithstanding the Czech authorities’ margin of appreciation, the children’s placement in care had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. Consequently, it concluded by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded the applicants jointly EUR 10,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, less the EUR 850 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) SCM Scanner de l’Ouest Lyonnais and Others v. France (no. 12106/03) The applicants are the company SCM Scanner de l’Ouest Lyonnais and its members, 13 radiologists who live in Lyons (France). They all use a scanner installed on the premises of a clinic in Lyons.   In 1996 the applicants applied to health insurance funds for payment of additional reimbursement following the invalidation of a decree amending the list of approved medical acts. A law of 19 December 1997, enacted while that procedure was ongoing, resulted in decisions by the courts dismissing the applicants’ claims.   The applicants alleged that there had been a breach of the principle of equality of arms on account of the enactment of a legalising Act modifying the outcome of proceedings to which the State was a party. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court considered that the disputed legislative measure, which determined with final and retrospective effect the merits of the dispute between the applicants and the State before the French courts, had not been justified by compelling grounds in the general interest. It therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants jointly EUR 7,000   for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,980   for costs and expenses.   Georgoulis and Others v. Greece (no. 38752/04) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Ioannis and Epaminondas Georgoulis and Eleni, Niki and Anastasia Georgouli, all Greek nationals, are joint owners of a plot of land situated in the town of Katerini, in the north of Greece.   In 2003 the Salonika Court of Appeal upheld the applicants’ request that the authorities remove the restriction on the status of their property.   The applicants complained that the authorities had refused to comply with a judicial decision in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants jointly EUR 15,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 5 § 4 Kampanellis v. Greece (no. 9029/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicant, Grigorios Kampanellis, is a Greek national who was born in 1961 and lives in Athens.   He was prosecuted for several financial offences. In December 2004 the Indictment Division ordered that the applicant be released subject to court supervision, with an obligation to pay bail of EUR 130,000. It held, in particular, that “... it had been established that, if the applicant is released, it is unlikely that he will commit other offences; as to the period during which he has been detained, we consider that it is sufficient to quieten him down and dissuade him from committing other similar acts”.   The applicant complained that there had been a violation of the principle of equality of arms before the Indictment Division of the Athens Court of Appeal, which had issued an order remitting him for trial without authorising him to appear in person, despite the fact that the prosecutor had been heard. He also complained about the reasoning adopted by the Indictment Division when ruling on his release on bail, which reflected an opinion that he was guilty despite the fact that the proceedings were still pending. He relied on Articles 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) .   The Court concluded by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 4. It further held that the comments by the Indictment Division could have been equated with a statement of guilt, which prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Peca v. Greece (no. 14846/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Kastriot Peca, is an Albanian national who was born in 1977. He is currently detained in Patras Prison (Greece).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the length (more than three years to date) of the criminal proceedings brought against him for drug trafficking, conspiracy and unlawful possession of arms; the appellate stage of those proceedings is currently pending following his conviction and sentencing to 13 years’ imprisonment in 2005.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,500   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Antunes and Pires v. Portugal (no. 7623/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Manuel Afonso Fernandes Antunes and Ana Gonçalves Pires, are Portuguese nationals who were born in 1947 and 1956, respectively. They live in Leça do Bailio (Portugal).   In February 1995 a couple to whom the applicants had sold a flat and a garage brought an action before the Oporto Court seeking compensation for hidden defects.   The applicants alleged that failure to communicate two memoranda sent to the appellate court by the judge at the first-instance court, and the impossibility of commenting on them, had rendered the proceedings unfair. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (no. 3)   (no.   25053/05) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Jorge de Jesus Ferreira Alves, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1953 and lives in Matosinhos (Portugal).   In 1998 the applicant’s estranged wife brought an action before the Oliveira de Azeméis Court, seeking cancellation of the right of access granted to the applicant with regard to their daughter. An official from the Attorney-General’s Department intervened in the proceedings, requesting, in particular, that the court order a social inquiry report with regard to the parents and a medical examination of the child.   The applicant alleged that the failure to communicate several procedural documents and the notes prepared by the court, had entailed a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and awarded him EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dura v. Romania (no. 10793/02)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Marcel Dura, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Iaşi (Romania).   The applicant alleged, in particular, that there had been a violation of his right of access to a court on account of the failure to execute a final judicial decision awarding him an allowance following a traffic accident. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The case has been struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive EUR 3,000. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Macovei and Others v. Romania (no. 5048/02) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) The applicants, Traian Macovei, Istocle Macovei, Ion   Macovei and Maria Grigoraş, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1938, 1941, 1931 and 1935, respectively. They live in Pătrăşcani, in the municipality of Gura   Văii (Romania).   In 1998 a dispute broke out between the applicants and their neighbours, as a result of which Traian Macovei and Maria Grigoraş were injured. According to a medical certificate drawn up two days after the incident, the two injured applicants had sustained, among other things, skull and cerebral trauma and numerous wounds to the head and hands; Mr Macovei had also lost a tooth.   The two injured applicants filed a criminal complaint, classifying the violence to which they had been subjected as attempted manslaughter and serious bodily harm. However, the Romanian authorities refused to prosecute the attackers under a charge of attempted manslaughter and insisted, as a condition for prosecuting the attackers, that the applicants file a new complaint alleging assault.   The applicants alleged that no effective investigation had been conducted with regard to the ill-treatment inflicted by their neighbours. They relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The Court noted that, having refused to file a complaint alleging assault as instructed by the prosecution service, the applicants had been deprived of the right to have their case heard by a court. In the Court’s view, having regard to the arguability of the applicants’ allegations and the absence at the relevant time of an appeal against the prosecution service’s decision to end the proceedings, the Romanian criminal justice system had proved incapable of punishing those responsible. Having noted that that was likely to diminish the public’s trust in the justice system and in its adherence to the rule of law, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3. It awarded Traian Macovei EUR 3,000   for non-pecuniary damage and, jointly with Maria Grigoraş, EUR 100   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Melnikova v. Russia (no. 24552/02)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 The applicant, Yelena Yuryevna Melnikova, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Penza (Russia).   The application concerned Ms Melnikova’s complaint about the lawfulness and length of her pre-trial detention on suspicion of fraud from January 2002 to May 2003. She was subsequently convicted as charged and sentenced conditionally to five years’ imprisonment. She relied on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security).   Finding that Ms Melnikova’s pre-trial detention from 5 to 24 June, from 24 June to 28   November 2002 and from 28   February to 23   May 2003 had not been lawful, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1. However, the Court found that her pre-trial detention from 5   January to 5   June 2002 and from 28   November 2002 to 28   February 2003 had been duly authorised and held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of that article under that head.   Finally, the Court found that the domestic authorities had failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify having prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention for one year, four months and 18 days. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Ms Melnikova was awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) EVT Company v. Serbia (no. 3102/05)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, EVT Company, is a Serbian company which has its head office in Leskovac (Serbia).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complained about the non-enforcement of a final judgment given in its favour resulting from commercial proceedings.   The Court found that the Serbian authorities had failed to effectively carry out the enforcement proceedings and had thereby denied the applicant company the right to a fair trial. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further held that Serbia should ensure the full execution of the Commercial Court’s final judgment. EVT Company was awarded EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mitrevski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 33046/02) The applicant, Stojan Mitrevski, is a Macedonian national who lives in Bitola (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).   The case concerned Mr Mitrevski’s complaint about the unfairness of proceedings involving ownership of a plot of land and house. He alleged, in particular, that he had been unable to attend the last hearing before a decision was made in his case because he had not been notified of a change of venue.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found that the domestic courts could not justify changing the venue of the hearing without prior notice and that the applicant had therefore been deprived of the opportunity to attend the last and therefore crucial hearing in the proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further held unanimously that there was no need to examine Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded Mr Mitrevski EUR   248 in respect of costs and expenses. (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:     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kudrina v. Russia (no. 27790/03)   Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Aryamin v. Ukraine (no. 3155/03) Sova v. Ukraine (no. 36678/03 ) Vasilyev v. Ukraine (no. 11370/02) The applicants are five Russian nationals and three Ukrainian nationals.   In all the cases, the applicants complained, in particular, that judgments in their favour had either been quashed, not enforced in good time or not at all.   They all relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). With the exception of the applicants in Aryamin v. Ukraine , Sova v. Ukraine , they also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Kudrina v. Russia , and further held that Russia should pay the judgment debt still owed to the applicant.   In the remaining cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1, and a further violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia .   In all the cases except for Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia , the remainder of the applications were declared inadmissible.   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 complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Mr   Redka also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). In the case of Svistun v. Ukraine , the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Tomljenović v. Croatia (no. 35384/04) Gardedieu v. France (no. 8103/02) Noel Baker v. Greece (no. 32155/04)         Roïdakis v. Greece (no. 7629/05) Thomas Makris v. Greece (no. 23009/05) Szebellédi v. Hungary (no. 38329/04) Svistun v. Ukraine (no. 9616/03)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Redka v. Ukraine (no. 17788/02)   Violation of Article 13     ***   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.