CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 juillet 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 } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA126A650 { width:55.45pt; display:inline-block } .sF193F830 { width:30.83pt; display:inline-block } .sD599B024 { width:125.49pt; display:inline-block } .sFAE3C08B { width:14.79pt; display:inline-block } .s8DB9D0E7 { width:52.13pt; 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 } .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   494 10.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning   Luxembourg, Moldova, Poland, Portugal and   Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] can be found at the end of the press release.       Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Schneider v. Luxemburg (application no. 2113/04)   Violation of Article 11 The applicant, Catherine Schneider, is a Luxembourg national who was born in 1974 and lives in Luxembourg.   On 5 March 2002 the applicant wrote to the chairman of the Troisvierges hunting association (in Luxembourg) to express her opposition to the inclusion of her land in a hunting area. She emphasised that her opposition was “based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”. In September 2002 she lodged an appeal seeking the quashing of a ministerial decision which, among other things, had approved an extension of the hunting-ground lease. In its judgment of 12 February 2003, the Luxembourg court dismissed her argument relating to an alleged breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The applicant claimed that there had been interference with her rights to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions and to freedom of association. She thus relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, separately and taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   The European Court of Human Rights observed in particular that, although the applicant had not been deprived of her right to use, rent out or sell her property, its inclusion in a hunting ground had prevented her from exercising her right as she wished. The Court thus held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 11 and found that it did not need to examine separately the complaint under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make an award in that connection. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Bimer S.A. v. Moldova (no. 15084/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Bimer S.A., is a company based in the Republic of Moldova.   In May 2002, following an amendment to the Customs Code by the Moldovan Parliament, the Customs Department ordered that duty free products could only be sold in international airports and on international flights, and that other duty free outlets had to be closed. In June 2002 Bimer S.A., together with other companies similarly affected, lodged a court action against this order with the Court of Appeal, which ruled in favour of the applicant. Ultimately, on 11 September 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the applicant’s action.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property), the applicant argued, in particular, that the interference had constituted an excessive burden for it and that a fair balance had not been struck between the public interest and its individual rights.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded Bimer S.A. EUR 520,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Tonderys v. Poland (no. 14382/04)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Ryszard Tonderys, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Wołów (Poland).   In June 1999 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of, among other things, murder and causing grievous bodily harm. On 16 June 1999 Stalowa Wola Regional Court ordered that he be detained on remand. Ultimately, he was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge), Mr Tonderys complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.   The Court concluded that Mr Tonderys’ pre-trial detention had lasted three years and almost seven months and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. He was awarded EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Cruz de Carvalho v. Portugal (no. 18223/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, José Maria Cruz de Carvalho, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1930 and lives in Lisbon.   In October 2001 an insurance company brought proceedings against the applicant before the Portuguese civil courts in connection with a dispute concerning an outstanding motor insurance premium. In those proceedings the insurance company was represented by a lawyer, with one of its employees being present as a witness. The applicant chose to appear at the hearing in person, accompanied by two witnesses. The Lisbon Civil Court did not allow him to examine the witnesses or to plead his case, on the ground that he was not a lawyer. He was ordered to pay EUR 138.98 to the insurance company in December 2003.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that he had been prevented from pleading his case and from examining witnesses.   The Court observed that, under Portuguese law, the applicant had been able to appear personally at the hearing. However, he had been prevented from pleading his case and from examining witnesses, whereas the insurance company had enjoyed all those rights.   The Court therefore considered that the applicant had been placed at a significant disadvantage in relation to the other party. It thus held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of failure to maintain equality of arms. It awarded Mr   Cruz de Carvalho EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Kanala v. Slovakia (no. 57239/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Ivan Kanala, is a Slovak national who was born in 1964 and lives in Rožňava (Slovakia). He is a businessman.   In 1991 the applicant acquired, at an auction in the context of denationalisation of State property, property in Rožňava. He took out a loan to buy the property and took a further loan to reconstruct the buildings. Subsequently the applicant was unable   to pay the instalments to the bank. In 1998 the executions officer ordered the sale of the applicant's share in the property at a public auction. The auction was cancelled after the other co-owner had used his pre-emption right and acquired the applicant's share in the property in that he had deposited the sum corresponding to its   value   as determined by an expert in accordance with the relevant regulation   The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that his property had been sold to the co-owner, in the context of enforcement of his debt, at a price which was below its actual value.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (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:     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Herdade da Comporta – Actividades Agro Silvícolas e Turísticas, S.A. v. Portugal (no.   41453/02) Sociedade Agrícola Herdade da Palma S.A. v. Portugal (no. 31677/04) The applicant companies, Herdade da Comporta – Actividades Agro Silvícolas e Turísticas, S.A. and Sociedade Agrícola Herdade da Palma S.A., are limited companies incorporated under Portuguese law. Their registered offices are in Comporta (Portugal) and Lisbon, respectively. At the time when the application was lodged Herdade da Comporta – Actividades Agro Silvícolas e Turísticas, S.A. was known as The Atlantic Company and was based in Jersey.   The applicant companies owned land which was expropriated in 1975 in connection with a policy related to agrarian reform. The relevant legislation provided, among other things, for the payment of compensation to the owners. The applicant companies complained to the Supreme Administrative Court alleging miscalculation and the application of an unreasonably low interest rate, but their complaint was dismissed.   The applicant companies alleged that the amount of the award did not constitute “fair compensation” and complained of a delay in the assessment and payment of the final compensation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded each company EUR 350,000 for pecuniary damage, with EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   ***   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) 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.