CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 octobre 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   675 11.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Romania, Russia and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 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.   No violation of Article 6 § 1(length) Violation of Article 11 Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece (application no. 35151/05) The seven applicants, Hasan Bekir-Ousta, Apti Pentzial, Haki Tsiligir, Ali Nalbant, Ali Nizam, Retzep Kahriman and Suleyman Kara-Housein, are Greek nationals living in Evros prefecture (Greece).   In 1995, together with other members of the Muslim minority in Western Thrace, they set up a non-profit-making association called the “Evros Prefecture Minority Youth Association”. The association sought, in particular, “to harness the intellectual potential of young people belonging to the minority, safeguard and promote minority traditions, develop relations between its members and protect democracy, human rights and friendship especially between the Greek and Turkish peoples”. In March 1996 the Greek courts rejected an application to have the association registered, pointing out that the Treaty of Lausanne recognised only a Muslim, and not a Turkish, minority in Western Thrace. The courts found that the title of the association was confusing, creating the impression that nationals of a foreign country, and in particular Turkish nationals, were permanently resident in Greece and that the association they had set up was not aimed at serving the interests of the Muslim minority in Evros. The applicants challenged the decision rejecting their application before the Greek courts, without success.   Relying, in particular, on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the refusal by the Greek courts to register their association and of the length of the relevant proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the proceedings in question had not exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and held unanimously that there had been no violation of that provision. It further acknowledged that the interference complained of had pursued a legitimate aim, namely to prevent disorder, but observed that the applicants’ intentions had not been tested in practice, as the association had never been registered. In addition, even assuming that the true aim of the association had been to promote the idea that an ethnic minority existed in Greece, that did not amount to a threat to a democratic society. There was nothing in the association’s articles of association to suggest that its members advocated the use of violence or anti-democratic methods. Furthermore, the Greek courts had the power to order that an association be dissolved if its aims were contrary to the law or at variance with those set forth in its articles of association. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 14 separately. It further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 11 Bozgan v. Romania (no. 35097/02) The applicant, Gheorghe Bozgan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Mândruloc (Romania).   On 23 April 2002 the applicant made an application for registration of the association the “Anti-Mafia National Guard” in the associations and foundations register. He joined to the application copies of the association’s memorandum and articles of association, which stated, among other things, that its aim was “to provide guidance for citizens concerning legal forms of self-defence to counter the threat of organised crime”, and that the association “would identify, through the mass media, persons involved in organised crime and create a corresponding database”. The articles of association further specified that the association “[did] not seek to take the place of the State authorities”. On 24 April 2002 the Romanian courts rejected the application, finding that the aims of the association promoted “activities which entail[ed] interference with the activities of the State judicial authorities, going as far as the planned establishment of parallel structures which would monitor those authorities”. An appeal by the applicant against that judgment was dismissed in a final judgment of 25   June 2002.   Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicant complained of a restriction of his right to set up an association.   The Court noted that the Romanian courts had ruled on the basis of a mere suspicion that the association intended to set up parallel structures. It considered that their decision appeared arbitrary in so far as the articles of association made no mention of any such intention. Moreover, the applicable law conferred on the Romanian courts the power to order the dissolution of an association if its aims were contrary to the law or at variance with those set forth in its articles of association. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11. It considered that the present judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Larco and Others v. Romania (no. 30200/03) The applicants are Ioan Larco, a Romanian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Iaşi (Romania), and three firms, S.C. Larco – Centrul Internaţional de Informare şi Implementare a Invenţiilor S.R.L., Fundaţia Ştiinţifică Internaţională D.I. Mangeron and Fundaţia Ştiinţifică Larco – Centrul Internaţional de Informare şi Implementare a Invenţiilor Iaşi. The firms were established in 1993 and 1994, with registered offices at the home of Ioan Larco, who is their legal representative.   In January 1999 the Romanian courts ordered the eviction of the applicant Ioan Larco from his flat for failure to repay a property loan. The applicants complained, in particular, that their possessions had been improperly transported and deposited in the basement of the block of flats. In March 2002 the applicants brought several actions for damages before the Iaşi County Court, seeking compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage allegedly sustained following the eviction. The actions were struck out for non-payment of stamp duty, which had been payable in the amount of EUR   5,722.31   euros   (EUR) in respect of the applicant Ioan Larco and in the amount of EUR   85,296.18 in respect of the applicant firms. Their requests for exemption had previously been rejected by the Directorate-General of Public Finances.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants alleged that the striking-out of their actions for damages had deprived them of their right of access to a court.   The Court observed that the amount of stamp duty payable by the applicants had been considerable and that it did not appear from the provisions of Romanian law applicable at the material time that the refusal to grant them exemption would have been amenable to appeal before a court. It therefore considered that the Romanian courts had not fulfilled their obligation to secure the right of access to a court in a manner compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision. It found that it was not necessary to rule on the other complaints raised and awarded the applicants EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 2 Mantog v. Romania (no. 2893/02) The applicant, Maria Mantog, is a Romanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Motru (Romania). She had a daughter, Daniela, who died on 5 January 2000. Daniela was married to I.C. and they had a son who was ten years old at the material time.   The Romanian authorities stated that on 16 December 1999, following an argument, I.C. had decided to leave the marital home with his son. Daniela had then poured petrol over her upper body and over her son and husband, before setting fire to herself using a lighter. On 31   January 2000 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Romanian courts against I.C. and his friend and superior officer, C.I. She accused I.C. of inciting her daughter to commit suicide and assisting her suicide, and accused C.I. of protecting his friend. On 17   May 2000, following investigative measures, the military prosecutor’s office found that I.C. and C.I. had no case to answer and that the applicant’s daughter had committed suicide.   Relying, in particular, on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complained of the lack of an adequate and effective investigation capable of determining the circumstances of her daughter’s death and of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.   The Court noted that the evidence in the case file contradicted the applicant’s arguments as to the complete absence of an investigation into the circumstances of her daughter’s death. On the contrary, the investigation complained of had established the cause and elucidated the circumstances in a sufficiently detailed manner, so that the proceedings reached a stage where the death could no longer be considered suspicious. The Court further noted that the investigation had been started promptly and had been conducted within a reasonable time. It considered that very thorough inquiries had been carried out by the criminal police and by the military prosecutor’s office. As the Romanian authorities had conducted a judicial investigation which satisfied the requirements of Article 2, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of that Article. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 Nasrulloyev v. Russia (no. 656/06) The applicant, Khabibullo Nasrulloyev, is a Tajikistani national who was born in 1954 and lives in the Moscow Region where he fled with his family following the civil war in Tajikistan. He was the chairman of the Tajik Consumers’ Union and leader of the People’s Front in the Hissar region of Tajikistan.   On 21 August 2003 Mr Nasrulloyev was arrested in Moscow on charges of political offences committed between 1992 and 1997 during the civil war in Tajikistan. He was charged, in particular, with manslaughter, kidnapping and participation in an armed group with a view to attacking Government institutions. Tajikistan requested the applicant to be extradited. He requested that his extradition be refused on the grounds that the proceedings against him in Tajikistan were politically motivated and he risked a death sentence if found guilty. His application for political asylum in Russia was, however, rejected in June 2006 and the courts decided to extradite him. Following a request for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the European Court of Human Rights indicated to Russia that the applicant should not be extradited to Tajikistan until further notice. In the meantime, the applicant repeatedly asked to be released, without success. The Russian courts considered that detention of a person with a view to their extradition was not limited in time as it was not explicitly required by the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. One decision was nonetheless taken: on 1 July 2006, following the refusal to grant political asylum, the applicant’s detention was extended by 14 days. That decision was upheld on 13   September 2006. The applicant’s release was, however, ordered on 21 August 2006. Ultimately, the proceedings to extradite the applicant were refused by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 2 October 2006.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr   Nasrulloyev complained that he was detained unlawfully for more than three years in Russia pending his extradition to Tajikistan.   The Court noted, in particular, that it appeared illogical and peculiar that on 1 July 2006, three years after the applicant had been placed in custody, it was suddenly considered necessary to request his detention to be extended by 14 days. It was equally inconsistent that that decision was confirmed on 13 September 2006 despite the fact that the applicant’s release had only just recently been ordered on 21 August. Those inconsistencies were matched on a more general level by contradictions in the domestic courts’ reasoning concerning the provisions applicable to detainees awaiting extradition. The Court found that the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty had not had adequate safeguards against “arbitrariness” and that the relevant legislation had not been precise or foreseeable. The applicant’s deprivation of liberty could not be considered “lawful” and the Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f).   The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   4 due to the fact that, the applicant, who under Russian criminal law had neither been a “suspect” nor a “defendant” because the proceedings against him were in Tajikistan and not Russia, had not been entitled to have the lawfulness of his detention examined by a court. Mr   Nasrulloyev was awarded EUR   40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,400 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dragoş v. Romania (no. 32743/05) Muşat v. Romania (no. 33353/03) Szekely v. Romania (no. 31177/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Fischer v. Romania (no. 28400/04) Puşcaş v. Romania (no. 30502/03) The applicants in these five cases were the owners of properties which were nationalised by the Romanian State. They brought actions seeking, among other things, to recover possession of their property and to have contracts of sale concluded by the State set aside.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ştefanescu v. Romania (no. 9555/03) This case concerns non-enforcement of a judicial decision following the applicant’s dismissal.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Krasyuchenko v. Russia (no. 11712/06)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Derevyanko and Beletskiy v. Ukraine (nos. 35765/05 and 37847/05) The Court found the above violations in these cases concerning national judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour which had not been enforced in good time or not at all.     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) Filioti v. Greece (no. 31071/05) Georgios Papadopoulos v. Greece (no. 11536/05) Polychronakos v. Greece (no. 23032/05)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Poulitsidi v. Greece (no. 35178/05)     ***   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.