CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 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 } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sE48472C3 { width:197.46pt; display:inline-block } .s9A28CB49 { width:156.17pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sAD6DDCBC { width:271.51pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   730 30.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, Portugal and Serbia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   One repetitive case [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bodon v. Hungary (application no. 16412/05) Kálovits v. Hungary (no. 26958/04) The applicants, Ferenc Bodon and Géza Kálovits, are Hungarian nationals who were both born in 1955. They live in Budapest and Bátonyterenye (Hungary), respectively.   On 13 June 1996, Mr Bodon was arrested on charges of smuggling and detained until 10   June 1997. Subsequently in 1998 he and 11 others were charged with smuggling merchandise from Austria to Hungary. On 18 June 2004 the criminal proceedings were discontinued against him and his accomplices on the ground that their conduct was no longer punishable following Hungary’s accession to the European Union.   In May 1993 Mr Kálovits was charged with fraud and two counts of violating foreign exchange regulations. He was acquitted of those charges on 4 February 2003.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against them.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both cases on account of the length of the criminal proceedings having lasted over eight years and four months in the case of Mr   Bodon and over 11 years and one month in the case of Mr Kálovits. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, Mr Bodon was awarded 8,000 euros (EUR) and Mr Kálovits EUR 10,000. The remainder of the applications were declared inadmissible. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Marčić and 16 Others v. Serbia (no. 17556/05)   The case concerned the complaint of 17   applicants, at the relevant time citizens of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro,   about the non-enforcement of a   court decision of 27   December 1990 which ordered   their former employer to make payment of salaries for work carried out on a project in Iraq.   The applicants relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   The Court noted that the   decision of 27 December 1990, following Serbia’s ratification of Protocol No. 1 in March 2004, had not been enforced for more than three years and seven months and remained unexecuted. There had notably been nothing to suggest that the   proceedings   in question had been complex or that the applicants’ right to have the   decision   enforced had become time-barred. The Court therefore found that Serbia had prevented the applicants from receiving money which they had legitimately expected to receive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Given that finding, the Court further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It held unanimously that Serbia had to enforce, by appropriate means, the   decision of 27 December 1990. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Campos Costa and Others v. Portugal (no. 10172/04)   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the nine applicants alleged that the late determination and payment of compensation following the nationalisation of their business had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Pallos v. Hungary (no. 44726/04)     ***   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.