CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s39F3D38E { width:6.75pt; display:inline-block } .sF5D3D042 { width:92.15pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s6C94E094 { width:139.5pt; display:inline-block } .s312583D5 { width:74.12pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s7528F4E8 { width:154.84pt; display:inline-block } .s8F885846 { width:72.13pt; display:inline-block } .s82B5513F { width:81.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA6BC27C7 { width:36.81pt; 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   507 12.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Romania, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23 Chamber judgments, none of which 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.   Stankov v. Bulgaria (application no. 68490/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Parvan Slavchev Stankov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Sofia.   He instituted   proceedings against the State for damage caused by his unjustified pre-trial detention. The domestic courts held that the State was liable and awarded damages to the applicant. However, applying the   court-fee system   under the   State Responsibility for Damage Act, the domestic courts ordered the applicant to pay court fees in an amount equal to approximately 90% of the award made. The applicant thus lost his compensation in court fees.   He relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of article 6 §   1 (access to court). It held that the imposition of a considerable financial burden due after the conclusion of the proceedings might well act as a restriction on the right of access to a court.   The costs order against the applicant had constituted such a restriction. The Court further found that the impugned court-fee system had failed to take into account the difficulty of assessing likely awards for non-pecuniary damage. The court fees had been particularly significant because the relevant legislation imposed a flat 4% rate with no upper limit and no room for any judicial discretion.   Despite its legitimate aim, the court-fee system under the State Responsibility for Damage Act had resulted in a disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s right to a court, as a consequence in particular   of its automatic nature.   The Court awarded Mr   Stankov 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kovač v. Croatia (no. 503/05)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and   3 (d) The applicant, Tomislav Kovač, is a Croatian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Virovitica (Croatia).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (d) and awarded Mr Kovač EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Nanning v. Germany (no. 39741/02)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Sabine Nanning, is a German national who was born in 1961 and lives in Düsseldorf (Germany).   In 1987 Mrs Nanning decided to join a married couple and their four children in order to live together with them and her own daughter E, aged four, as one family. When the relationship between the adults deteriorated in 1991, E remained with the other couple, who prevented contacts between Mrs Nanning and her daughter. From 1991 onwards she unsuccessfully attempted to have her daughter returned.   She relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Noting that the proceedings were pending for four years before Düsseldorf Regional Court, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It also considered that the domestic courts adduced relevant reasons for rejecting the applicant’s request to return E, and therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 8 as regards the continued placement in the foster family and partial transferral of custody rights. The Court further noted that the reasons which Düsseldorf Regional Court relied on to exclude the applicant’s access to her child were insufficient to justify such interference in the applicant’s family life. Therefore it held that there had been a violation of article 8 as regards the exclusion of access rights. Mrs Nanning was awarded EUR   8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 397.35 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Hauler v. Romania (no. 67703/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Magdalena Hauler, is a Romanian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Carei (Romania).   She applied to the administrative commission for the application of Law no.   18/1991 seeking restitution of a 3.3 hectare plot of land which had belonged to her aunt. In October 1991 she obtained recognition of her title to the surface area claimed, but was not “put in possession” of the land.   Subsequently, in January 1995, the municipality granted a third party title to part of the land claimed by the applicant and put that party in possession of the land. The applicant brought proceedings seeking the annulment of the document of title but her action was dismissed on the ground that the courts were not empowered to review the way the administrative commission had chosen in practice to restore the applicant’s right of property.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of the refusal by the courts to review the lawfulness of the administrative commission’s decision. She further submitted that she had suffered interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the applicant’s inability to obtain a review by the domestic courts of the question whether she met the statutory requirements to secure the return of a plot of land on the original site had impaired the very essence of her right of access to a court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and found that it did not need to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   4,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, plus EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 SC Ruxandra Trading SRL v. Romania (no. 28333/02)   The applicant, SC Ruxandra Trading SRL, is a company incorporated under Romanian law, having its registered office in Bucharest.   In 1996 the applicant company rented from Bucharest city council a 9,550   sq.m plot of land on a street called Tipografilor in Bucharest. A dispute arose between the council and the applicant company over the issuance of a building permit to the latter. On 8   June   2000 Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered the council to issue the applicant company with a permanent building permit and to grant the company a long-term lease in respect of the disputed land.   The applicant company complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that Bucharest city council had failed to execute the final judgment given in its favour. It further alleged that this failure had interfered with its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court observed that the failure to execute the judgment of 8 June 2000 had impaired the applicant company’s right of access to a court and had prevented it from using the land in question. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and found that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Nosalskiy v. Ukraine (no. 26277/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Stanislav Andrianovich Nosalskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and awarded Mr Nosalskiy EUR 2,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 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:     Radu v. Romania (no. 65402/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Săvulescu v. Romania (no. 1696/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cornelia   Eufrosina Radu was a Romanian national who was born in 1927 and lived in Târgovişte (Romania). She died in 1999 but the Court authorised her heirs to pursue the proceedings before it. Savu Crivăţ Săvulescu is a Romanian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Bucharest.   In both these cases the applicants took proceedings seeking to obtain the restitution of real property that had been nationalised in 1950. Mrs Radu complained in particular, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that her action to establish title had been dismissed; Mr   Săvulescu complained in particular that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the sale by the State of part of his property to third parties.   In the Radu case the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mrs Radu’s heirs EUR 7,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus EUR 500 for costs and expenses. In the Săvulescu case the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 and that Romania should return the property in question to the applicant within three months from the date on which this judgment became final. Failing that, the State would have to pay him EUR   46,000 for pecuniary damage. In any event, the Court awarded Mr Săvulescu EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Lykov v. Russia (no. 18557/06) Nevolin v. Russia (no. 38103/05) Pylnov v. Russia (no. 7111/05) Telyatyeva v. Russia (no. 18762/06) Vedernikova v. Russia (no. 25580/02) Chukhas v. Ukraine (no. 4078/03) Gorin v. Ukraine (no. 24380/03) Rudenko v. Ukraine (no. 19441/03)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kray v. Ukraine (no. 25426/03) Napalkova v. Ukraine (no. 316/04) Petruk v. Ukraine (no. 25500/03) Uryanskiy v. Ukraine (no. 21003/02) The applicants are five Russian nationals and eight Ukrainian nationals.   The Court held unanimously that in all the cases there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. With the exception of the cases of Kray , Napalkova , Petruk and Uryanskiy , it held that there had been 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 cases of Kray , Napalkova and Rudenko .   The Court held that the respondent State should pay the judgment debts still owed to the applicants in the cases of Lykov , Pylnov , Kray , Rudenko and Uryanskiy .   The sums awarded to the applicants under Article 41 (just satisfaction) 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 in particular of the excessive length of (non ‑ criminal) proceedings. They both relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kozlov v. Ukraine (no. 11084/03) Vyrovyy v. Ukraine (no. 28746/03)     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.