CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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 } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .s3286B780 { width:140.8pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE79BE033 { width:257.97pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s5D692C31 { width:66.13pt; display:inline-block } .sBC931E67 { width:149.57pt; display:inline-block } .sCF05D539 { width:254.15pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s3B5624F2 { width:38.13pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s3A5540BC { width:151.91pt; display:inline-block } .sCCA78367 { width:85.48pt; display:inline-block } .sB6F64D44 { width:90.83pt; 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   460 28.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Armenia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Latvia, Romania, Russia, Spain and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceeding cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Harutyunyan v. Armenia (application no. 36549/03) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Misha Harutyunyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia).   In June 1998 the applicant was drafted into the army and assigned to a military unit on the border with Azerbaijan. In April 1999 he was accused of killing a fellow serviceman with whom he had apparently had an argument earlier in the day. Ultimately, he was found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Harutyunyan complained that his right not to incriminate himself and his right to a fair trial had been breached by the use at his trial of statements which had been obtained from him and two witnesses through torture.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant and the two witnesses had been coerced into making confessions and that that fact had been confirmed by the domestic courts when the police officers concerned were convicted of ill-treatment. The Court concluded that the use of such evidence rendered the applicant’s trial unfair and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It further held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under the same article concerning an alleged violation of the applicant’s right not to incriminate himself. The Court awarded Mr Harutyunyan 4,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 13   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria (no.   62540/00) The applicants are the Association for European Integration and Human Rights, a non-profit-making association founded in March 1998 with its registered office in Plovdiv, and Mihail Ekimdzhiev, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Plovdiv.   One of the principal aims of the applicant association is the protection of human rights. Mr   Ekimdzhiev is a lawyer who acts as counsel in civil and criminal cases in Plovdiv and represents applicants in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.   Their application concerned their complaint about the Special Surveillance Means Act of 1997, a piece of legislation which allows the use of secret surveillance measures in Bulgaria. The applicants claimed that, under the law as it stands, they might be subjected to surveillance measures at any point in time without notification.   They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence).   The Court concluded that Bulgarian law did not provide sufficient guarantees against the risk of abuse inherent in any system of secret surveillance and that it did not provide effective remedies against the use of special means of surveillance. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13. The Court further held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kaya v. Germany (no. 31753/02)   No violation of Article 8 The applicant, Erkan Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 in Germany (Mannheim) where he lived with his parents and sister until his arrest in January 1999. He currently lives in Istanbul.   The case concerned Mr Kaya’s complaint about his expulsion following his conviction in September 1999 for, in particular, attempted trafficking in human beings, aggravated battery and drugs offences. As a result, he was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment and was ordered to be deported to Turkey on his release from prison.   He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court noted the particular seriousness of Mr Kaya’s offences and found that a fair balance had been struck in that his expulsion had been proportionate to the aims pursued, namely the maintenance of public safety and prevention of crime, and was therefore necessary in a democratic society. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Grosu v. Romania (no. 2611/02) Rădulescu v. Romania (no. 31442/02) The applicants, Andrei Grosu and Ştefan Rădulescu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1946 and 1930 and live in South Windsor (United States) and Bucharest, respectively.   Both of the applicants complained, in particular, about the unlawful appropriation by the State of land in Romania which had belonged to their parents. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the case of Grosu , the Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision. In the case of Rădulescu , it held that the Romanian State was to execute the judgment of the Slatina Court of First Instance, of 1 March 1999, and the Olt County Court’s judgment of 29   October 2001, and accordingly to restore the land to the applicant in the three months following the date on which the Court’s judgment became final. In the absence of such execution, the Romanian State was to pay Ştefan Rădulescu, within the same three-month period, EUR 10,000 for pecuniary damage. In any event, the Romanian State was to pay Mr   Rădulescu EUR 1,000   for all other damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Shukhardin v. Russia (no. 65734/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 1, 3 and 4 The applicant, Valeriy Vladimirovich Shukhardin, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lived until his arrest in Moscow.   In March 1999 Mr Shukhardin was arrested on suspicion of fraud. He had organised a financial scheme in which more than one hundred people had been enrolled and which had caused fraud losses of over 23,000,000 Russian roubles (approximately EUR 662,000). Ultimately, in April 2004, he was found guilty of aggravated fraud and sentenced to nine year’s imprisonment, later reduced to eight years.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) and § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Mr Shukhardin complained about the length and unlawfulness of his detention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of Mr   Shukhardin’s detention from 8 September 2000 to 1   July 2002 and from 17 to 21   April 2003, and that there had been no violation of that article on account of his detention from 1   July 2002 to 17   April 2003. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the courts’ failure to justify the applicant’s continued detention for four years and almost two months. Finally, the Court found that the domestic courts having taken five periods lasting between four and 15 months to examine the applicant’s requests to be released, was not compatible with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 and therefore also held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision. Mr Shukhardin was awarded EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 6 in conjunction with Article 14 Perez Arias v. Spain (no. 32978/03)   The applicant, Amalia Pérez Arias, is a Spanish national who was born in 1937 and lives in Lugo (Spain).   In 1997 Mrs Pérez Arias’ husband and son were killed in a road accident. Under Law no. 30/1995 of 8   November 1995 on private insurance, the Lugo Audiencia Provincial awarded the applicant compensation for the deaths of her husband and son. In respect of the part of the compensation related to the loss of a child, the applicant received half of the sum foreseen in the scales for victims’ parents set by the law, on the ground that, in line with the Audiencia ’s interpretation, this expression required that the two parents be alive in order for the full amount to be awarded.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant challenged that interpretation of Law no. 30/1995, considering that there was no valid reason, in view of the spirit and letter of the disputed legislation, to halve the amount of compensation. She also complained that she had been subjected to discriminatory treatment on account of the different interpretations given to the Law by the national courts, relying on Article 14.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 taken in conjunction with Article 14. (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:   Boychenko and Gershkovich v. Russia (no. 62866/00) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sivoldayeva v. Russia (no. 3906/06)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants are three Russian nationals.   In the case of Boychenko and Gershkovich the applicants complained about the quashing by way of supervisory review of a judgment given in their favour.   In the case of Sivoldayeva the applicant complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of a final judgment given in her favour.   They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both cases and a further violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Sivoldayeva . In the case of Boychenko and Gershkovich the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The Court awarded Ms Sivoldayeva EUR 70 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10 for costs and expenses. Mr Boychenko and Mr   Gershkovich were each awarded EUR   2,000. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular of the excessive length of (non ‑ criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Aiouaz v. France (no. 23101/03)   Violation of Article 13   Broka v. Latvia (no. 70926/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Dolgikh v. Ukraine (no. 9755/03)   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.