CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF026B33E { width:34.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s902F48A3 { width:91.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sD46A638E { width:156.81pt; display:inline-block } .s30514779 { width:35.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9A04250C { width:103.46pt; display:inline-block } .sC7B37593 { width:56.25pt; display:inline-block } .s882796D2 { width:156.82pt; display:inline-block } .s5135D418 { width:80.79pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4D25DC87 { width:18.1pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s29970D9 { width:40.17pt; display:inline-block } .sBF339177 { width:227.55pt; display:inline-block } .s637F546E { width:25.5pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sE28AE700 { width:122.12pt; display:inline-block } .s73F4F64A { width:29.48pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s7CE92EAE { width:110.14pt; display:inline-block } .s417F2572 { width:52.1pt; display:inline-block } .sAFC51D4E { width:122.82pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s2240724A { width:16.16pt; display:inline-block } .s8C0DA9F { width:46.15pt; display:inline-block } .s89C05F2D { width:84.8pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   536 26.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Romania, Russia, Switzerland and the Ukraine.   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 30 Chamber judgments, none of which 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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Schutte v. Austria (application no. 18015/03) Stempfer v. Austria (no. 18294/03) Vitzthum v. Austria (no. 8140/04) The applicants are three Austrian nationals: Roland Schutte born in 1963; Josef Stempfer born in 1934; and, Andreas Vitzthum born in 1968. They live, respectively, in Ostermiething, St   Johann am Walde and Geretsberg in Austria.   All three cases concerned the applicants’ complaints about the length of criminal proceedings against them for driving offences. In 1997 Mr Schutte had refused to stop for a traffic control in the early hours of the morning; Mr Stempfer was accused in 1995 of a hit and run offence; Mr Vitzthum was charged with drunk driving in 1999. Mr Schutte’s proceedings lasted five years; Mr Stempfer’s seven years and two and a half months; and, Mr Vitzthum’s four years and two months.   They all relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Mr Schutte further claimed that his conviction in the administrative criminal proceedings against him despite his earlier acquittal by the Ried im Innkreis Regional Court was in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice).   The Court held, by six votes to one in the case of Schutte, and, unanimously in the other two cases, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court further found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 in all three cases. Each applicant was awarded 1,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the applications were declared inadmissible. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 33343/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Bahram Bey oglu Tarverdiyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1934 and lives in Ismayilli (Azerbaijan).   Mr Tarverdiyev was the director of the Ismayilli Region Forestry until May 2001 when he fell ill and, while in hospital, was dismissed. As a result, he brought proceedings against the Ministry of Environment for unfair dismissal. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the non-enforcement of a judgment delivered on 20 August 2001 in which his reinstatement to his former post was ordered.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the judgment of 20 August 2001 not having been enforced for more than five years from the date of the Convention’s entry into force in Azerbaijan. It further held unanimously that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 and that Azerbaijan should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 20 August 2001. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 3 Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria (no. 61507/00)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Andrei Petrov Georgiev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Slivnitsa (Bulgaria).   Mr Georgiev was put into detention on 26 June 2000 on charges of causing bodily harm following a brawl in a discotheque. He was released on bail on 19 July 2000. The criminal proceedings against him were discontinued in August 2002 due to lack of evidence. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that his detention at the Slivnitsa Investigation detention centre from 26 June to 19 July 2000 had been unlawful and the conditions there had been inadequate.   He relied, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that Mr Georgiev, had not claimed to have suffered physically or mentally during his detention or complained about any other aspects of the detention centre’s regime. The Court therefore did not find that the applicant’s treatment had gone beyond the threshold of severity required to find a violation under Article   3. Accordingly, it held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 3. It did, however, find a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 on account of the Government not having shown that an effective remedy had existed under Bulgarian law at the relevant time for the applicant to complain about the inadequate conditions of his detention. The applicant was awarded EUR   500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 10 Peev v. Bulgaria (no. 64209/01)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Peycho Ivanov Peev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Sofia. He was employed as an expert at the Criminology Studies Council of the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office.   On 13 May 2000 the daily newspaper Trud published a letter written by Mr Peev in which he criticised the Chief Prosecutor. In retaliation, the applicant alleged that a search was unlawfully carried out of his office and that a draft letter of resignation was seized and used against him so that he was dismissed from his post. Following civil proceedings he brought against the Prosecutor’s Office, the domestic courts declared in March 2002 that the termination of his contract was unlawful. That judgment ordered the applicant to be reinstated to his former post and awarded him compensation. He was never reinstated but, in April 2003 and independently of the Court order, he was given an appointment in a similar body (now under the authority of the Ministry of Justice) to his former post.   He relied, in particular, on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court found that Mr Peev could reasonably have expected his desk and filing cabinets to be treated as private property, particularly given the personal belongings he had kept there. The Court concluded that the search had amounted to interference by a public authority with the applicant’s private life. The Government had not relied on any domestic law or regulations governing the Prosecutor’s Office to justify the fact that the applicant’s office had been searched even though no criminal investigation had been brought against him. The Court therefore found that that interference had not been “in accordance with the law” and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8.   The Court noted that Mr Peev’s office had been sealed off and searched and he had been dismissed very shortly after the publication of his letter. The sequence of those events led the Court to conclude that the measures taken against the applicant had resulted from the accusations in his letter. Those measures amounted to restrictions which interfered with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Given that the applicant’s dismissal had already been found unlawful in the domestic proceedings, that interference had not been “prescribed by law”. Accordingly, the Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The Court further noted that the domestic proceedings in which Mr Peev had challenged his dismissal had only concentrated on his complaint about whether he had actually lawfully given his resignation. No remedy had been provided with which he could effectively complain about his freedom of expression having been breached. Neither did the Government indicate a remedy whereby the applicant could have obtained redress for the unlawful search of his office. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10.   Mr Peev was awarded EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,613.66 for costs and expenses, to be paid to the applicant’s representative, Mr D. Kanchev. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Ješina v. Czech Republic (no. 18806/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Bohuslav Ješina, is a Czech national who was born in 1942 and lives in Bruntál (the Czech Republic).   The case concerned Mr Ješina’s complaint about the unfairness of proceedings which had been brought against him for damages caused by a road traffic accident in March 1996. Ultimately in September 1999, the domestic courts found that the applicant was responsible for the accident and ordered him to pay damages plus interest.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), Mr Ješina notably complained that his constitutional appeal had been declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust statutory remedies.   The Court found that the Constitutional Court had interpreted a procedural rule in such a restrictive manner that the applicant had been deprived of his right of access to a court. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Pieri v. France (no. 7091/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, François Pieri, is a French national who was born in 1929 and lives in Ajaccio (France). He is a retired serviceman.   The applicant, a lieutenant pharmacist, served in the French Medical and Pharmaceutical Faculty in Beirut (Lebanon) from October 1974 to April 1975, while civil war was raging in that country. He claimed that he had contracted chronic obstructive bronchitis on account of frequent and sustained periods spent, in winter, in inappropriate and unsanitary shelters. On 17 April 1996 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Defence for a disability pension in connection with his illness. His application was dismissed by the Ministry of Defence in March 1998, and that dismissal was upheld by the domestic courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant claimed, among other things, that there had been violations of his right to a fair hearing before the Conseil d’Etat .   The Court noted, in particular, the presence of the Government Commissioner at the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further held that the finding of a violation provided in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Sayoud v. France (no. 70456/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Leulmi Sayoud, is a French national who was born in 1950.   In July 2000 the Reims Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to six years’ imprisonment for the unauthorised purchase, possession, transportation of drugs and for offering to supply or sell drugs, and imposed a customs fine of about EUR 228,000. In November 2000 the Reims Court of Appeal upheld that judgment and ordered the applicant’s exclusion from French territory for five years, having regard, in particular, “to the serious nature of the offences in question”. On 29   November 2002 the applicant was placed on a flight to Alger (Algeria). The public prosecutor’s office at the Reims Court of Appeal stated that the order excluding the applicant from French territory was lifted, but the applicant was unable to return to France because his visa applications were refused. On his return to France in May 2006, he eventually obtained a “certificate of nationality” and then a national identity card.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant alleged that the order excluding him from French territory and its execution had infringed his right to private and family life.   The Court considered that the order excluding the applicant from French territory and its execution had amounted to an “interference by a public authority” and that it had not been “in accordance with the law”. It held that the French authorities had ordered and executed a sanction against a person who had always been French and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. It also held that it was not necessary to make an award to the applicant under Article 41 of the Convention.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Walchli v. France (no. 35787/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Jean-Claude Walchli, is a French national who was born in 1937 and lives in Condat (France).   The applicant was prosecuted for forging notarised and public documents. At the close of the investigation, he lodged an application to have the investigation proceedings set aside. His application was declared inadmissible on account of a formal defect, in that it had not been the subject of a statement, signed by the registrar, to the registry of the investigation division, as required by Article 173 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure. The inadmissibility of the application to have the proceedings in the investigation procedure set aside was confirmed on appeal and subsequently by the Court of Cassation.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that there had been a violation of his right to a fair trial. He alleged that he had been unable to have access to a tribunal in order to have the proceedings in the investigation which had led to his conviction set aside. In that connection, he alleged that his application to have the proceedings set aside had been perfectly lawful in terms of the formal requirements of the domestic legislation.   In the light of the consequences of his application’s inadmissibility for the applicant – who,   as a consequence of Articles 173 and 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had never been able to challenge the disputed procedural acts before the investigating judicial authorities and the trial courts – the Court considered that the applicant had been made to bear a disproportionate burden which had upset the fair balance that was to be struck between the legitimate concern to ensure that the formal procedure for applying to the courts was complied with and the right of access to a court. It held that the domestic courts had been excessively formalistic with regard to the procedural requirements for submission of the said application. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Markoulaki v. Greece (No. 1) (no. 44858/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Klio Markoulaki, is a Greek national who was born in 1937 and lives in Athens.   In March 2000 the applicant filed a complaint against Dr S.. She accused the doctor of having shown serious negligence in treating her, with the result that her left leg had been amputated. On 21 January 2004 the Athens criminal court acquitted the defendant on the ground that it had not been established that the latter had caused the applicant damage. In February 2004 the prosecutor at the criminal court dismissed the applicant’s application to lodge an appeal in a handwritten note: “no, there are no grounds for lodging an appeal”. The domestic courts also dismissed her request to lodge an appeal on points of law, in a handwritten note of June 2004: “there is no reason to appeal on points of law”.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained, in particular, that the decisions by which the relevant prosecutors had dismissed her applications to appeal and to appeal on points of law had contained no reasons.   The Court noted that, according to its settled case-law, tribunals were required to give adequate reasons for their decisions. It also reiterated that it had already had occasion to criticise the practice of prosecutors in Greece who dismissed in short handwritten notes applications submitted to them. It therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Dorneanu v. Romania (no. 1818/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Claudia Dorneanu, was born in 1922 and lives in Bacău (Romania).   In 1991, under Law no. 18/1991 on land, the applicant asked the local and county committees to restore her property title to a plot of land, measuring 4.5 hectares, which had belonged to her parents before being nationalised. In a judgment of 29 January 1999, the domestic courts ordered the two committees to provide the applicant with title to several plots of land, specifying their location and boundaries. The applicant considered that the plots of land attributed to her did not fully respect the locations specified by the judgment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of a failure to execute the final judgment of 29 January 1999.   The Court noted, in particular, errors by the domestic authorities which, in its opinion, showed a certain weakness in the system put in place to deal with restoration of property rights. It therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Whilst it was true that the applicant now possessed title to the property, the Court considered that, on account of the delay in executing the judgment, she had sustained damage arising from the fact that, for more than two years, she had been unable to exercise fully all the rights associated with ownership. It therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and awarded Mrs Dorneanu EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 580 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Hirschhorn v. Romania (no. 29294/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Carl Hirschhorn, is a French national who was born in 1925 and lives in Cannet (France).   In 1952, under nationalisation decree no. 52/1950, the State took possession of a building located in Bucharest which belonged to the applicant’s parents. In a judgment of 24   June 1999, the domestic courts ordered the defendant parties to restore to the applicant the building and adjacent land. In November 2000 the applicant, accompanied by a bailiff, found that the building was occupied by the organisation “United States – Peace Corps”, under a lease which the latter had contracted with the State company “Locato”, which managed the buildings made available to diplomatic missions in Romania. In spite of numerous requests to the domestic courts, the applicant was unable to obtain restitution of the disputed building. The proceedings are still pending.      The applicant alleged that there had been a two-fold violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). He complained firstly that the failure to execute the final decision of 24   June 1999 had restricted his right of access to a tribunal, and, secondly, he considered that the Civil Division of the Bucharest Court of Appeal had not been “an independent and impartial tribunal”. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant also complained that there had been a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   The Court considered that, in refusing to comply with the final judgment ordering that the building be restored to the applicant, the national authorities had deprived him of effective access to a tribunal. It also considered that the applicant’s doubts concerning the appeal court’s independence and impartiality could be regarded as objectively justified. It therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In addition, noting in particular that the applicant had been deprived of all property rights over his building for several years, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It also held that the respondent State was to return the disputed building to the applicant and that, failing such restitution, it was to pay him EUR 1,900,000 for pecuniary damage. In any event, the Court awarded Mr Hirschhorn EUR 200,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Barankevich v. Russia (no. 10519/03)   Violation of Article 11 The applicant, Petr Ivanovich Barankevich, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Chekhov (Russia). He is the pastor of the “Christ’s Grace” Church of Evangelical Christians.   In September 2002 Mr Barankevich was refused permission to hold a service of worship which he intended to hold in a park in Chekhov. He consequently brought proceedings against Chekov Town Council for having violated his right to freedom of religion and assembly. His claim was ultimately dismissed by the domestic courts in November 2002 on the ground that the applicant’s church was different from those of the majority of local residents and a service of worship could have led to discontent and public disorder.   The applicant complained under Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) that he had not been allowed to hold a service of worship in public. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he further complained that he was treated differently from members of other religious denominations.     The Court emphasised the fact that the Evangelical Christian religion being practised by a minority of Chekov’s residents could not justify an interference with their rights. It was also without question that the religious assembly planned by the applicant had been of a peaceful nature. Even assuming that there had been a threat of violence from a counter-demonstration, the domestic authorities had a wide choice of means which they could have used to facilitate the holding of the assembly without disturbance. The Court therefore considered that the ban had not been “necessary in a democratic society” and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11 interpreted in the light of Article 9. Given that conclusion, it further held that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 14. The applicant was awarded EUR   6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 8 Chepelev v. Russia (no. 58077/00)   No violation of Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 The applicant, Aleksandr Vitalyevich Chepelev, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Uglich (Russia). He has a daughter A. born in 1993. In 1996 his wife, A’s mother, brought divorce proceedings against him. The marriage was dissolved in the same year and custody of A. was awarded to the mother. As the applicant moved to Uglich in 1995 which is a long way from Murmansk (Russia), where his ex-wife and daughter continued to live, contact with his daughter has been infrequent.   In 1997 Mr Chepelev’s ex-wife married S.A. and at the end of 1998 he brought proceedings seeking to adopt A. The applicant, who strongly opposed the adoption, joined the proceedings as a third party. In March 1999 the domestic courts allowed S.A. to adopt A., considering that it was in the child’s best interests.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (equality between spouses), Mr Chepelev complained about the domestic authorities’ decision to allow his daughter to be adopted without his consent.   The Court observed that the applicant had not seen his daughter since she was two years old, that is to say more than three years before her adoption had been granted. On the other hand, S.A. had close ties with A. as they had been living together for almost three years by the time she was adopted. Indeed, A. considered S.A. to be her father. The adoption decision therefore consolidated and formalised already existing ties. A. lived in a good environment, her mother and S. A. providing the necessary conditions for her development. No legal obstacles had been established either against the adoption. It followed that the aim of the adoption was in the best interests of the child and it could not be said that the adverse effects it had had on the applicant’s relationship with his daughter had been disproportionate. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8. With regard to that assessment and that there had been no indication that the domestic authorities had arbitrarily come to their decisions, the Court further held unanimously that there had been no violation either of Article 5 of Protocol No. 7. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 11   Violation of Article 5 § 1 Makhmudov v. Russia (no. 35082/04)   Violation of Article 5 § 5 The applicant, Rustam Khamidovich Makhmudov, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Moscow. At the relevant time he was a district councillor.   The case concerned Mr Makhmudov’s complaint that Moscow’s administrative authorities had not authorised a demonstration scheduled for 4 September 2003 at the Zashchitnikov Neba Square in Moscow under the pretext that it expected an outbreak of terrorist activities in that district. The demonstration was organised by a non-governmental organisation which aimed to protect citizens’ rights in town planning and was to protest in particular against the planned construction of a luxury block of flats and to cast a vote of no confidence against the city authorities. Despite the refusal, the applicant – one of the assembly’s co-organisers – and a few dozen residents gathered on the square on 4 September. The police dispersed the crowd by force. The applicant was later taken out of a car by force and escorted to the district police station, where he was detained for the night and not given any food or drink. Over the following days the “Day of the City” was celebrated in Moscow and several public festivities sponsored by the Mayor took place despite the potential “terrorist threat”. On 5   September 2003 the applicant was charged with disobeying lawful police orders and organising an unauthorised assembly. The proceedings were subsequently discontinued concerning the disobeying of a lawful order but the applicant was found to have breached procedure for organising public assemblies. His appeals were rejected. The applicant also brought civil proceedings for damages against the district police station but his claim was dismissed.   Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Mr Makhmudov complained that, on the one hand, Moscow’s administrative authorities had felt obliged to cancel his assembly because of a potential “terrorist threat” but, on the other hand, had not cancelled public festivities scheduled for the same period. He further complained that his detention at the police station had been unlawful, for which he was unable to obtain compensation, and he had not been brought promptly before a judge, in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court declared the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Government had failed to produce any evidence of a “terrorist threat” which led the Court to conclude that the domestic authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner. It therefore found there had been no justification for the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of association and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11. The Court further found that the applicant’s arrest had not been based on a “reasonable suspicion” and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1. The applicant had been subjected to an administrative arrest meaning it would not have been sufficient for that arrest to be found unlawful to receive compensation. The applicant would also have had to prove that the State officials had been at fault. It followed that the applicant had not had an enforceable right to compensation and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5. Mr Makhmudov was awarded EUR 12,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kessler v. Switzerland (no. 10577/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Erwin Kessler, is a Swiss national who was born in 1944 and lives in Tuttwil (Switzerland).   The applicant, who contested the opinion presented in an article claiming that he had disseminated neo-Nazi ideas, lodged two criminal complaints for defamation against the legal representative of the daily newspaper “ Der Bund ” and against that representative’s lawyer. In January 2003 the district court acquitted the opposing party and ordered the applicant to pay about EUR 608 in damages. In August 2003 the appeal court partially granted the applicant’s appeal, upheld the acquittal and reduced the amount to be paid to about EUR 300. In a public-law appeal submitted to the Federal Court on 14 January 2004, the applicant asked that that decision be set aside. In February 2004 the Federal Court declared his appeal inadmissible.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that the appeal court had communicated to him the opposing party’s observations on his appeal only when sending him its own judgment.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the fact that the applicant had not had an opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations submitted by the opposing party meant that there had been a violation of that Article. It also awarded Mr Kessler EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Weber v. Switzerland (no. 3688/04)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 The applicant, Julien Weber, is a Swiss national who was born in 1979.   He is currently held in La Tuilière Prison, Lonay (Switzerland).   In June 2002 the applicant was convicted of various offences: bodily harm, threats, robbery and violence. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, less the two hundred and twenty-five days spent in pre-trial detention. In application of Article 43 § 2 (2) of the Swiss Criminal Code, the criminal court suspended execution of the sentence in favour of out-patient medical and social treatment. As the applicant was failing to comply with the treatment, in February 2003 the prison service asked the criminal court to order that the out-patient treatment be replaced with placement in a specialised establishment. The applicant was summoned to the hearing at the criminal court on 11 September 2003. According to the record of that hearing, his speech was incoherent and he was “clearly falling apart”. The president of the court ordered that he be arrested immediately and placed in detention on remand, on account of the risk that he would re-offend. On 26 September 2003 the criminal court dismissed an application for the applicant’s release.   The applicant argued that his placement in placement in detention, ordered on 11 September 2003 by the president of the criminal court, did not have a sufficient legal basis for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that it was not the grounds for detaining the applicant which were disputed in this case, but solely the legal basis, and that the measure taken by the president of the criminal court had not had an adequate legal basis. Consequently, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,500 for non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Benyaminson v. Ukraine (no. 31585/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Alexandr Isaakovich Benyaminson, was a Ukrainian national who was born in 1943 and lived in Simferopol (Ukraine).   He died on 14 November 2004 and   his partner, Nadezhda Stepanovna Cherkassova,   decided to continue the proceedings before the Court on his behalf.   On 15 December 1998 Mr Benyaminson was arrested and placed in police custody on   charges of fraud. He was suspected of forging his ex-wife’s signature on a divorce petition   and replacing her in the court divorce proceedings with another woman in order   to obtain sole possession of   the matrimonial estate. He was released in January 1999 and   the proceedings against him were discontinued in April 2004.   Relying, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Benyaminson complained   of   ill-treatment and lack of medical assistance   during his detention on remand and of the unfairness and   length of the criminal proceedings against him.     The Court declared that the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 was inadmissible as it had been lodged out of time. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 on account of the proceedings having lasted five years and four months and there having been no effective or accessible remedy under domestic law with regard to that complaint. Mr   Benyaminson was awarded EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Kalinichenko v. Ukraine (no. 25444/03) Safyannikova v. Ukraine (no. 31580/03) The applicants are two Ukrainian nationals, Georgiy Mikhaylovich Kalinichenko born in 1948 and Lyudmyla Ivanivna Safyannikova born in 1961. They live, respectively, in Simferopol and Konotop in Ukraine.   In 2003 Mr Kalinichenko was given a suspended one year sentence of correctional labour for abuse of power. The criminal proceedings against him lasted six years and three months.   In 2002 Ms Safyannikova was found guilty of causing minor bodily injuries and given a suspended sentence of 180 hours’ public work and ordered to pay compensation. The criminal proceedings against her lasted four years and nine months.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), both applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against them. Mr   Kalinichenko also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both cases and, in the Kalinichenko case, that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article   13. Mr Kalinichenko was awarded EUR   800 for non-pecuniary damage and Ms Safyannikova EUR   81 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are 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 Elena and Nicolae Ionescu v. Romania (no. 42061/02) Hertzog and Others v. Romania (no. 34011/02) Spanoche v. Romania (no. 3864/03)     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sidorenko v. Russia (no. 3519/05)   Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Vershinina v. Russia (no. 3462/04)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   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.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Doggakis and Others v. Greece (no. 527/05)   Violation of Article 13     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Inkovtsova v. Ukraine (no. 39946/03) Kucherenko v. Ukraine (no. 22600/02) Shanko v. Ukraine (no. 39970/02)   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.