CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3EA915C4 { width:83.5pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sE00513AA { width:120.15pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sA4F030BC { width:58.17pt; display:inline-block } .sC8B042BA { width:4.1pt; display:inline-block } .s6012B25 { width:63.75pt; display:inline-block } .sF0EE6833 { width:73.47pt; display:inline-block } .s5EFD7C60 { width:46.76pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7BBD3E9 { width:44.17pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sFA29198D { width:56.79pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA4AD9AE2 { width:52.81pt; display:inline-block } .s44075453 { width:61.5pt; display:inline-block } .sD3923F6B { width:127.89pt; display:inline-block } .s3790E30C { width:82.82pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2CEC6C10 { width:70.11pt; display:inline-block } .s6EA8B5D1 { width:244.15pt; display:inline-block } .s10B11425 { width:120.13pt; 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   623 27.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Romania, Russia, Sweden and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Akimova v. Azerbaijan (application no. 19853/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Valentina Akimova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1950 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan).   In 1997 Ms Akimova allowed an acquaintance, R., to live temporarily and free of charge in a flat for which she had tenancy rights. R. then allowed some of his relatives, who had fled their home in Agdam due to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, to move into the flat. The case concerned proceedings in which the applicant requested that R’s family be evicted. In December 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that the family should vacate the flat but, because they did not have anywhere else to live, it postponed the execution of the judgment until such time as the Agdam Region was liberated from occupation. At present, Agdam remains under the control of Armenian forces and R’s relatives are still living in the applicant’s flat.   Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Akimova complained about the decision to postpone the execution of the eviction order.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the domestic courts had recognised Ms   Akimova as the lawful tenant of the flat and had not relied on any domestic legislation to postpone the execution of the eviction order. The Internally Displaced Persons Settlement Regulations, cited by the Government, contained no rules on allowing the execution of eviction orders to be postponed indefinitely. Article 4 of those regulations stipulated that protection from eviction could only be obtained by internally displaced persons who had settled in another person’s property from 1992 to 1994 when intensive military action in Nagorno-Karabakh had taken place. It did not therefore apply in this case as R.’s relatives had moved into the flat in 1997. The Court therefore found that the interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions had been unlawful and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It further held that no separate examination was necessary of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Doinov v. Bulgaria (no. 68356/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Ognian Nakov Doinov, was a Bulgarian national who was born in 1935. He was a member of the Bulgarian Communist Party, in which he held high-ranking posts, in particular, Secretary of the Central Committee and Member of the Politburo. Following democratic change in Bulgaria in 1989 Mr Doinov alleged that he and his family were harassed by the authorities. He therefore moved to Vienna in 1990 and lived there until he died in February 2000.   The case concerned criminal proceedings brought against Mr Doinov in 1992 for misappropriation of public funds and property between 1981 and 1986. An extradition request sent from Bulgaria to Austria in January 1994 was refused. The proceedings against the applicant continued in Bulgaria until January 2000 when they were discontinued on the ground that his actions had not amounted to an offence under domestic criminal legislation at the time.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the criminal proceedings against the applicant having lasted for over seven years and eight months. Mr Doinov’s heirs were awarded 3,700   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Nalbantova v. Bulgaria (no. 38106/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Todorka Petrova Nalbantova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   In February 1993, following a tax audit of the cooperative for which Ms Nalbantova was the executive officer, a criminal investigation was opened against her for embezzlement. Ultimately, in May 2002 the criminal proceedings were discontinued due to lack of evidence.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complained about the length of criminal proceedings brought against her.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the criminal proceedings against the applicant having lasted more than nine years and two months. It further held that there had been a violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of an effective remedy for the excessive length of those proceedings. The Court awarded Mrs Nalbantova EUR   4,600 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 8 Kolona v. Cyprus (no. 28025/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Eleni Kolona, now deceased, was a Cypriot national who was born in 1926 and, at the relevant time, lived in Limassol (Cyprus).   In July 1997 Mrs Kolona’s home, a house in the village of Pelendri (Limassol), was the object of a compulsory acquisition order and a requisition order to build a road. The applicant brought proceedings against the compulsory acquisition order before the Supreme Court which were dismissed. However, while she still had the right to appeal, on 19 July 2000 her house was demolished. In the ensuing appeal proceedings it transpired that the compulsory acquisition order had in fact been revoked pending the first instance proceedings because her property was no longer necessary for the benefit of public use. Only the requisition order had been in force at the time of demolition. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. In the meantime, the applicant brought proceedings before the Supreme Court against the demolition of her house which were unsuccessful both at first instance and on appeal.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mrs Kolona complained that the demolition of her home had been unlawful and that she had not been given any compensation.   The Court noted that the authorities had demolished Mrs Kolona’s house not only within the period in which she still had the right to appeal but also after the acquisition order had been revoked. It was not persuaded by the Government’s arguments that the demolition of the applicant’s house had taken place on the lawful basis of the requisition order. Furthermore, the applicant had not been given any effective notification of the intended demolition or offered any compensation. In view of all the circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her property had been arbitrary and therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. For the same reasons, the Court further held that there had also been a violation of Article 8 concerning the applicant’s right to respect for her home. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Smatana v. the Czech Republic (no. 18642/04)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 The applicant, Pavol Smatana, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1975. He is currently serving a sentence in Leopoldov Prison (Slovakia).   On 7 June 2000 the applicant was arrested and charged in a case concerning false banknotes; he was eventually convicted on 12 February 2003 and sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment and expulsion for an indeterminate period. Mr Smatana had been placed in pre-trial detention on 9 June 2000. This was extended on several occasions until 13 February 2003, when the applicant was transferred to prison in order to serve his sentence. The regional court subsequently decided to reduce the length of the sentence to reflect the period he had already spent in detention. In April 2004 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Justice for compensation in respect of the allegedly illegal decisions regarding his detention; his request was held to be unfounded.   Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained about the length of his detention and the lack of promptness in the appeal proceedings concerning his continued detention. He also alleged that it had been impossible to obtain compensation for that detention.   The Court considered that the domestic courts had not put forward reasons that were sufficient to justify the applicant’s continued detention. It also noted that certain delays in the proceedings led it to consider that the courts had not complied with the obligation to reach their decisions “speedily”. In addition, it considered that, at the relevant time, the applicant’s effective enjoyment of his right to compensation was not ensured with a sufficient degree of certainty. As a result, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,234   for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Raspoptsis v. Greece (no. 1262/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Christos Raspoptsis, is a Greek national.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him for the use of a forged document.   The Court noted that the disputed proceedings had lasted about six years and nine months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period was excessive and failed to comply with the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Raspoptsis EUR   3,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Vassilios Stavropoulos v. Greece (no. 35522/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicant, Vassilios Stavropoulos, is a Greek national who was born in 1944 and lives in Argos (Greece).   On 9 June 1987 a decision by the administrative board of the Workers’ Housing Association revoked an order entitling the applicant to social housing, on the ground that he owned other property which he had not declared in his housing application. The applicant was subsequently prosecuted for fraud and making a false statement, and was eventually acquitted of all the charges in June 1991. In the meantime, in September 1987 he submitted an appeal to the administrative courts, seeking to have the administrative board’s decision overturned. At the close of those proceedings, which ended in May 2004, both the administrative court of appeal and the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the disputed decision and held that the criminal courts had not “found that the offences with which the applicant had been charged had not existed on the ground that there was an absence of malicious intent”, but had instead acquitted him “on account of doubts as to his guilt”.   Relying on Article 6 § 2 ( presumption of innocence ), the applicant complained that the administrative courts had ruled on his guilt in disregard of his acquittal in the criminal proceedings. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he also complained that there had been an infringement of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   The Court declared inadmissible the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further considered that both the Supreme Administrative Court and the administrative court of appeal had used terms which overstepped the administrative context of the dispute and left no doubt as to the applicant’s presumed intention to omit from his declaration all of the properties owned by him. It held that such reasoning was incompatible with respect for the presumption of innocence. The Court therefore concluded, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 and awarded the applicant EUR 10, 000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Corabian v. Romania (no. 4305/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Ciprian Dionisie Corabian, is a German national who was born in 1959 and lives in Schorndorf (Germany).   On an unspecified date during the communist regime, the Romanian State took possession of a plot of land which had belonged to the applicant’s grandmother and was located in Satu Mare (Romania). In March 1991, in his capacity as his grandmother’s only heir, the applicant applied to the local committee for restoration of his title to the land, but he obtained only shares in an agricultural company. He challenged that decision in 1992, requesting that he be granted land rather than shares. In a final judgment of 8   January 1993, the Romanian courts ordered the local committee to restore the applicant’s title to a plot of land, measuring 9.99 ha and situated within the territory of Satu Mare, but without identifying its location. The county committee eventually issued a title to property in his name on 24 February 2004, a fact which he was informed of only two years later.   The applicant complained about infringements of his right of access to a court and his right to property on account of the Romanian courts’ failure to execute the judgment of 8   January 1993. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that, although the committees had given the applicant possession of a plot of land and had issued him with title, they had only done so after an abnormally long time, namely about twelve years and two months. It also considered that, on account of the delay in executing the judgment, the applicant had sustained damage arising from the failure to enjoy his possessions for many years. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 7,200   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Grozescu v. Romania (no. 17309/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Alexandru Stefan Grozescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Bucharest.   In July 2000 the applicant petitioned the Bucharest Court of First Instance for a divorce and stated that he agreed that his ex-wife, G.S.B., could retain her married name. He subsequently asked the court, at a hearing in October, to order her to revert to her maiden name. In December the Court granted the divorce and held that G.S.B. was to use her maiden name, since the applicant had not agreed that she could retain her married name. G.S.B. appealed, pointing out that she was known professionally under her married name. At the only hearing before the court of appeal, held on 12 December 2001, G.S.B. was heard in the absence of the applicant or his lawyer. By a judgment of the same date, the court of appeal authorised her to use her married name, on the ground that she was known under this name in her professional life and that the applicant had given his agreement in the initial petition, even if he had subsequently changed his position.   The applicant complained that the authorisation given to his ex-wife to use his name after their divorce had caused him non-pecuniary damage; he also complained about the unfairness of the proceedings before the Romanian courts. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court noted that the judgment of 12 December 2001 was largely based on the argument put forward by the applicant’s ex-wife, and that the applicant and his lawyer had not been present at the hearing and had therefore been unable to reply to the submissions made. The Court considered that the applicant’s case had not been given a fair hearing, since there had been no adversarial argument in the appeal proceedings. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and held that it was not necessary to examine the merits of the complaint under Article 8. It also held that the finding of a violation provided in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Grozescu and awarded him EUR 400 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Reiner and Others v. Romania (no. 1505/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) The four applicants, Anton Reiner, Octavian Paisz, Dezideriu Hejja and Ioan Konrad, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1948, 1934, 1946 and 1967 respectively and live in Târgu Secuiesc (Romania).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time), the applicants, who were convicted in 2001 of assaulting a police officer and thus causing his death, complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against them. They further relied on Article 6 §   3   (d), and complained that the Romanian courts had dismissed their repeated requests for questioning of witnesses.   The Court noted that, in the cases of Mr Paisz, Mr Hejja and Mr Konrad, the disputed proceedings had extended over six years and nine months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that that was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement;   accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. With regard to Mr Reiner, it noted that the disputed proceedings had lasted three years and four months, but did not find that there had been a period of inactivity which could be attributed to the judicial authorities. It therefore concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of Mr Reiner. It also concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) in respect of Mr   Paisz, Mr Reiner and Mr Konrad, and no violation of that Article in respect of Mr Hejja.   The Court awarded the applicants a total sum of EUR 10,100   for non-pecuniary damage and awarded them EUR 1,500   jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dzhavadov v. Russia (no. 30160/04)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Valeriy Mamedovich Dzhavadov, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Belgorod (Russia).   On 23 October 2002 Mr Dzhavadov filed an application with the Ministry for the Press, Television and Radio Broadcasting and Mass Communications for registration of a newspaper entitled Letters to the President (Письма Президенту).   On 23 January 2003, the applicant was informed by the Ministry that the title of the newspaper was misleading and could give the impression that the newspaper was an official publication. The applicant was therefore advised to “obtain the approval of the competent authorities”.   On 9 July 2003 the applicant received the Ministry’s official refusal to register the newspaper, on the grounds that the newspaper purported to cover a broader range of subjects than its title suggested and because only the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation could consent to the publication of letters to the President or be a founder of a newspaper with such a title.   The applicant failed to have the Ministry’s refusal overturned by the domestic courts.   The applicant alleged that the Russian authorities refused to register his newspaper under the title Letters to the President , thereby preventing him from publishing it.   The Court found that the Russian courts’ decision was not founded on any legal provision which clearly authorised it and was not reasonably foreseeable for the applicant. Given that the interference with the applicant’s rights was therefore not “prescribed by law”, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression). Mr   Dzhavadov was awarded EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Zementova v. Russia (no. 942/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Tatyana Nikolayevna Zementova, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Lopatinskiy (Russia). She was a labour inspector in the Voskresensk district, Moscow.   On 29 December 1999 Ms Zementova was arrested and criminal proceedings were brought against her for bribery. She was released two days later. She was subsequently charged with bribery and abuse of power and, in April 2003, was convicted to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and prohibited from holding administrative and supervisory posts. In July 2003 that decision was quashed on appeal and the applicant was released pending trial. Ultimately, in December 2005 the applicant was acquitted of all charges.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Ms Zementova complained about the length of criminal proceedings brought against her.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the criminal proceedings against Ms Zementova having lasted more than six years and two months. She was awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Repetitive case   The following case raised issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bakherov v. Ukraine (no. 1192/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning a national judicial decision in the applicant’s favour which had not been enforced in good time.   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ergo Abekte v. Greece (no. 41558/04)   The estate of Nitschke v. Sweden (no. 6301/05)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Soghia Hellas v. Greece (no. 1989/05)   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) 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.