CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 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 } .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   698 18.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Asnar v. France (application no. 12316/04) The applicant, Claude Asnar, is a French national who was born in 1936 and lives in Pau (France).   He is a former secondary school teacher who in October 1988 unsuccessfully requested permission to retire at age 55 without deferring payment of his pension. At length, in January 1991, he won a judgment in his favour, awarding him payment of his pension as from 1 October 1991. However, on 20 October 1999 the Conseil d’Etat set aside that judgment, citing, among other grounds, the fact that there was a dispute about the total number of the applicant’s years of service. On a proposal by the Minister of Education, the Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry issued an order cancelling the applicant’s civilian pension with effect from 1 October 1991 and awarding him a new pension starting on his sixtieth birthday. The case history showed that two pleadings had not been sent to the applicant before the judgment of 20 October 1999. The first of these was a memorial from the Minister for Economic Affairs and the other was a reply by the Minister of Education to a memorial from Mr Asnar and contained “corrections of certain erroneous assertions”.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings in the Conseil d’Etat had been unfair and in particular that he had not been sent copies of the two above-mentioned pleadings.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the memorial from the Minister for Economic Affairs did not appear on the face of it to have any bearing on the legal outcome of the dispute, whereas the reply by the Minister of Education contained a reasoned opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claims which the latter was unable to study. It considered that Mr   Asnar should have been given the opportunity to submit his comments on the pleading from the Minister of Education, or at least informed of its content so that he could decide whether it was necessary to reply. The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and awarded the applicant 2,000   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gjashta v. Greece (no. 4983/04) The applicant, Genart Gjashta, is an Albanian national.   He was convicted of possessing and trafficking dangerous drugs and complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the length of the related proceedings, which he considered excessive.   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted nearly three years and five months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that that period was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Moschopoulos-Veïnoglou and Others v. Greece (no. 32636/05) The applicants are Orpheas Moschopoulos-Veïnoglou and Zoé Moschopoulou, two Greek nationals who were born in 1950 and 1947 respectively and live in Athens, and a joint stock company named Orpheus Veïnoglou Compagnie Internationale des Transports whose registered office is likewise in Athens. Orpheas Moschopoulos-Veïnoglou and Zoé Moschopoulou are brother and sister and the sole shareholders of the applicant company. Orpheas Moschopoulos-Veïnoglou is also the company’s legal representative.   Orpheas Moschopoulos-Veïnoglou and Zoé Moschopoulou are the owners of a plot of land in the municipality of Nikaia (Greece) on which they put up a building which they first rented, and in 2000 sold, to the applicant company. In February 1997 the applicants asked the Supreme Administrative Court to set aside the administrative authorities’ tacit refusal to lift an encumbrance to which their land was subject as a result of a new development plan adopted in 1985. On 5 July 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment in the applicants’ favour, observing that the administrative authorities were obliged to remove the encumbrance by altering the regional development plan. The administrative decision implementing the judgment was issued on 23 August 2005 and published in the Official Gazette on 14 September 2005.   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained of the administrative authorities’ refusal, over a long period of time, to comply with the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment.   The Court noted that the administrative authorities had taken a very long time to comply with the judicial decision on which the applicants relied in asserting their rights. It considered that the Greek authorities had failed in practice to comply with the judgment within a reasonable time and held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the right of access to a court. It held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under the same provision concerning the length of the proceedings, or the complaint under Article 13. The Court awarded EUR   5,000 to the applicants jointly for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Stadukhin v. Russia (no. 6857/02) The applicant, Ruslan Aleksandrovich Stadukhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in the Stavropol Region (Russia).   In December 2000 he was found guilty of murder, robbery and the illegal acquisition, storage and carrying of arms, and was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. At a hearing in February 2001 the Supreme Court, at the request of the Public Prosecutor, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that judgment. The applicant, who had not been informed of the hearing, was not present or represented by counsel.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Stadukhin complained about the failure of the Supreme Court to notify him of the appeal hearing.   The Court concluded that, for the proceedings to be fair, it was up to the Russian authorities to notify the applicant of the hearing even if he had not explicitly made a request to that effect. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Mr   Stadukhin was awarded EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   19 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The Court unanimously found the following violations and held in the Simizov case that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the Konovalov case it held, also unanimously, that there was no cause to examine separately complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Simizov v. Bulgaria (no. 59523/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Letica v. Croatia (no. 27846/05) Odeon Cineplex A.E. v. Greece (no. 36525/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Konovalov v. Ukraine (no. 13242/02)     ***   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.