CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 novembre 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   759 8.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Romania, Russia,   Spain and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 Chamber judgments, none of which are 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.     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Lelièvre v. Belgium (application no. 11287/03) The applicant, Michel Lelièvre, is a Belgian national who was born in 1971. He is currently detained in Arlon Prison (Belgium).   Mr Lelièvre, an accomplice in the “Dutroux case”, was arrested and charged in August 1996 with kidnapping and imprisoning an underage child. He was placed in pre-trial detention and was subsequently charged, among other things, with kidnapping six people, five of whom were underage, events which had allegedly resulted in the deaths of four of them, and with imprisoning three of them. The trial opened on 1 March 2004. Four days of hearings were held each week, and 459 witnesses were summoned. On 22 June 2004, the Arlon Assize Court sentenced Mr Lelièvre to 25   years’ imprisonment, as the perpetrator or co-perpetrator of, among other things, the following offences: aggravated imprisonment and kidnapping of underage children, trafficking in ecstasy tablets, conspiracy to kidnap and implied conspiracy in various forms of trafficking (including drugs and human beings).   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand.   The European Court of Human Rights held that it was clear that Mr Lelièvre’s continued detention was justified by the existence of plausible reasons for considering him a suspect. However, it considered that the Belgian courts had never seriously examined the question of alternatives to his detention, and also noted that the applicant appeared to have put forward proposals in that respect. Consequently, the authorities had not provided “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify maintaining the applicant in pre-trial detention for seven years, ten months and eight days. The Court also considered that the proceedings had not been conducted with “special diligence”, noting in particular that almost two years had passed between the transmission of the investigation file and the opening of the trial. It therefore concluded, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention and awarded Mr Lelièvre 6,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kalinova v. Bulgaria (no. 45116/98) The applicant, Bonka Petrova Kalinova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Nova Zagora (Bulgaria).   The case concerns the cancellation, in January 1998, of the applicant’s property title to a house which she had purchased from the municipality of Nova Zagora several years previously. The loss of title resulted from proceedings brought by the former owners of the property, which had been expropriated in 1984, and occurred as part of the process, begun in Bulgaria in the early 1990s, of restoring assets which had been nationalised or expropriated during the communist regime.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained about the cancellation of her property title.   The Court considered that Ms Kalinova had been deprived of her property by over-extensive application of the legislation on restitution (section 7 of the Restitution of Nationalised Assets Act) in a case which, a priori , did not come within its scope, and without compensation. The applicant, whose purchase had been cancelled on account of a formal breach of the urban planning rules and whose good faith in purchasing the house had not been contested, had thus been placed in a less favourable position than people who had acquired their property following substantial breaches of the law or through abuse of their position. The failure of the Bulgarian authorities to establish clear limits between the various situations in question had thus created a situation of legal uncertainty. The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded Ms Kalinova EUR   1,375   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Vasilev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 61257/00) The four applicants, Dimitar Nikolaev Vasilev, Asen Veselinov Sharlandzhiev, Georgi   Antonov Lefterov and Mihail Antonov Lefterov, are Bulgarian applicants who were born in 1974, 1972, 1972 and 1977 respectively and live in (Bulgaria).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against them for aggravated robbery.   The Court noted that the disputed proceedings had lasted six years and nine months in the case of Dimitar Nikolaev Vasilev and seven years and four months for the three other applicants. In particular, the Court examined whether the applicants had lost their status as victims of the alleged violation on account of the fact that, following the use of a remedy provided for in Article 239a of the previous Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced in 2003 for the purpose of limiting excessive durations in criminal investigations, the proceedings against them had been abandoned. The Court accepted that the domestic courts had recognised in their decisions that the proceedings had been excessively long.   However, given the major delays that had already taken place before the introduction of the remedy in question, it considered that the closing of the criminal proceedings had not constituted sufficient compensation for the applicants’ complaint. The Court therefore held that the applicants could still claim to be victims of the alleged violation and concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicants EUR   6,000   jointly for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Biondić v. Croatia (no. 38355/05) The applicant, Ivanka Biondić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Velika Gorica (Croatia).   Ms Biondić’s husband, A.B., died in October 1997. In the ensuing inheritance proceedings, a decision of 10 November 1997 by Velika Gorica Municipal Court declared the applicant and her daughter to be A.B.’s only heirs and distributed his estate between them in equal parts. On 29 November 1997, K.D. brought civil proceedings against Ms Biondić and her daughter in which he alleged that he was A.B.’s illegitimate son and sought one third of the estate. The applicant, who claimed that she had had no knowledge of K.D.’s existence prior to that, brought a counterclaim requesting that K.D. be declared unsuitable to inherit and that personal property acquired during her marriage be excluded from the joint property. In May 1999 the Municipal Court upheld K.D.’s claim and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim on the ground that she had failed to file a request during the inheritance proceedings for exemption of her personal property and that she was bound by the decision of 10 November which had been final. The applicant’s claims were rejected on appeal for the same reasons and were, ultimately, also dismissed by the Supreme and Constitutional Courts.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms Biondić complained that she had had no access to a court to claim that her personal property be separated from her and her late husband’s joint property.   The Court noted that the lower courts’ decisions had contravened the Supreme Court’s practice, which, in previous cases, had found that decisions in inheritance proceedings had not been binding on heirs who had not been a party to those proceedings. If new heirs who had not been involved in the proceedings made claims in relation to heirs who had been present, the previous decisions were not binding concerning any of the claims made by those new heirs. Therefore the substance of the applicant’s counterclaim should have been examined. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that the applicant’s right of access to a court had been breached and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. No claim for just satisfaction or for costs and expenses was made by the applicant. Accordingly, the Court considered that there was no need to make any such award. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Soffer v. the Czech Republic (no. 31419/04) The applicant, Susan Soffer, is a Czech national who was born in 1934 and lives in Evanston (United States of America).   In January 2003 the Czech courts dismissed an action brought by B.B. against Ms Soffer, concerning the restitution of property. They also cancelled the reimbursement of court fees previously awarded to the applicant. B.B. appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Cassation; meanwhile, the applicant submitted a constitutional appeal in order to have the decision concerning court costs re-examined. The Constitutional Court declared this appeal inadmissible and noted that the legal deadline for the submission of a constitutional appeal began to run only from the date of notification of the decision on the cassation appeal.   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained in particular that she had been unable to have the judgment of January 2003 re-examined.   The Court considered that Ms Soffer had not been sufficiently diligent in that she had failed to follow the reasoning set out in the Constitutional Court’s decision and had not attempted to bring a fresh constitutional appeal after having been notified of the Court of Cassation’s decision. In addition, she had not alleged that such a step would have amounted to a disproportionate burden on her. The Court therefore considered that Ms Soffer had not suffered interference with her right of access to a court, and concluded unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It also held that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 13.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece (no. 32141/04) The applicants, Athanasios Kosmidis and Chryssoula Kosmidou, are Greek nationals who were born respectively in 1947 and 1974 and live in Salonika (Greece).   In June 2002 Salonika Administrative Court of Appeal overturned the authorities’ tacit refusal to withdraw the expropriation order issued with regard to the applicants’ land and sent the case back to them so that the necessary measures would be taken. The Town Planning Directorate informed the municipality that it was nonetheless still possible to issue a new expropriation order if the conditions set out in the legislation were met. It invited the municipality to consider the question and asked the applicants to file the necessary documents, so that, if necessary, the alignment plan that affected their property could be amended. The applicants refused to file those documents.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Kosmidis and Ms Kosmidou complained of the authorities’ refusal to comply with the judgment of June 2002.   The Court considered that the authorities had not made excessive and unjustified requirements on the applicants. The latter had provided no justification for their refusal to submit the documents requested, and this refusal seemed to be at the origin of the deadlock. It appeared that the applicants were acting from a position of principle, which nonetheless sat badly with the need for pragmatic and effective cooperation between the authorities and the public. The Court therefore concluded, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Blidaru v. Romania (no. 8695/02) The applicants, Verginia Blidaru and Nicolae Blidaru, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1940 and 1947, and live in Călan and Hunedoara (Romania) respectively. They are brother and sister.   The case concerned an action for damages brought by Verginia Blidaru following a dispute over the purchase of a car. In a final judgment of 8 January 2003, the Romanian courts granted her case. However, the High Court of Cassation overturned that judgment in April 2004, following a request for judicial review by the General Prosecutor.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained about the setting aside of the judgment of 8 January 2003, which had recognised that Ms Blidaru had a claim. The Court held that it emerged from the case file that Nicolae Blidaru could not claim to be a victim of those violations.   The Court reiterated that one of the fundamental elements of the rule of law was the principle of legal certainty, which required, among other things, that where the courts had finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question. It considered that that principle had not been complied with by the Romanian courts in the applicants’ case and, accordingly, concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It also found that Ms Blidaru had been deprived of a legally-acquired asset, of the adjusted value of a bank deposit and of any compensation. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicant EUR   22,200 for pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Constantin Oprea v. Romania (no. 24724/03) The applicant, Constantin Oprea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1925 and lives in Timişoara (Romania).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he alleged that the Romanian authorities had not provided effective assistance in his attempts to secure the execution of a final judgment of 6 December 2000, ordering various individuals to pay him money for the use of his flat.   The Court noted that the applicant had applied to various authorities which were competent to provide him with effective assistance in securing compulsory execution of the judgment in question. However, on account of the lack of cooperation between those bodies, the passing on of responsibility and jurisdiction in the matter on account of the specific circumstances, and the incomplete nature of the investigation by the prosecution service, the assistance given to the applicant over a period of more than two-and-a-half years had proved ineffective. The Court therefore considered that the national authorities had not assisted him adequately in his attempts, and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR   971 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Rada v. Romania (no. 38840/03) The applicant, Ioan Constantin Rada, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Oradea (Romania).   In October 2000 Mr Rada was removed from his post as commercial director of PECO Bihor S.A., a branch of the Société Nationale du Pétrole PETROM S.A. Bucarest, and placed at the disposal of S.C. PECO Bihor. That company then appointed him to another post. The applicant successfully brought proceedings to have those decisions overturned, and a final judgment of 7 September 2001 ordered, among other things, that he be reinstated in the post of commercial director. However, in May 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice overturned that judgment, following a request for judicial review by the General Prosecutor.   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained, in particular, about the setting aside of the final judgment in his favour.   The Court reiterated that one of the fundamental elements of the rule of law was the principle of legal certainty, which required, among other things, that where the courts had finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question. As that principle had not been complied with by the Romanian courts in the applicant’s case, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It held unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 and awarded Mr Rada EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 34 Knyazev v. Russia (no. 25948/05) The applicant, Vitaliy Knyasev, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Krymsk (Russia). He is currently in detention in Russia.   The application concerned Mr Knyasev’s complaints that he was systematically beaten and ill-treated in various Russian detention facilities between March and August 2005 and that he was so disturbed by the ill-treatment that he started harming himself. He alleged, in particular, that in Lgov Correctional Colony: he had been stripped naked and beaten with rubber truncheons when he had refused to become part of a group of prisoners who cooperated with the prison authorities; had been forced to eat complaints he had written about the colony; and, had had an Alsation dog set on him. In Lgov Remand Prison, he had been tortured with an immersion heater in order to make him withdraw his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. In Bryansk Region Remand Prison, he had been subjected to further psychological pressure. He also complained that he was denied and even forced to refuse medical assistance for his injuries. He referred in particular to one of his acts of self-mutilation following which part of an electrode, which he had stabbed into his right hand side, had remained in his body and a surgeon had refused to remove it. Lastly, the applicant claimed that there had been no adequate investigation into his allegations.   Mr Knyasev relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). He further complained under Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) that his correspondence had been read by State officials and that a large number of his complaints and applications to various State authorities and a letter to his lawyer had not been sent. He also alleged that State officials had forced him to make a written statement on 5 August 2005 indicating that he wished to withdraw his application before the European Court of Human Rights, in breach of Article 34 (right to individual petition).   The Government denied the applicants’ allegations. Physical force had only been used on one occasion when the applicant had resisted a routine search. During his imprisonment, the applicant had been seen regularly by a psychologist who had diagnosed him as suffering from a personality disorder. All the applicant’s injuries had been self-inflicted and were a means to avoid prison regulations and oppose the prison authorities. His injuries had been treated and medical aid had been available at all times.   The Court rejected the complaint under Article 3 concerning ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation because the applicant, despite having been assisted by a lawyer throughout the proceedings, had failed to appeal against the five decisions of the prosecutor’s office not to bring criminal proceedings concerning his allegations. Given that finding, the complaint under Article 13 was also rejected. The Court further rejected the complaint under Articles 2 and 3 concerning lack of medical assistance. It noted in particular that, following the incident with the electrode, the applicant had had an X-ray and been seen by a surgeon who had removed it and dressed the wounds. There was nothing in the case file to support the applicant’s allegation that a part of the electrode had remained in his body. The Court found that there was no evidence to prove that the applicant had been forced to refuse medical assistance. Indeed, the material available showed that qualified medical assistance had been available and that it was the applicant who had refused that assistance on numerous occasions. The Court considered that Russia could not be held responsible for the applicant’s own refusal to undergo medical examinations or accept treatment. The complaint under Article 8 was similarly rejected for failure to provide evidence to support his allegations.   On the other hand, the Court observed that it had been informed by the applicant that his statement of 5 August 2005 had been written under pressure and should be disregarded. The Court was astonished that, having forwarded that information to the Russian Government, the latter nonetheless sent the statement to the Court and insisted that it had been written voluntarily. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that Russia had failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 34 not to hinder the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of individual petition. The Court held that that finding constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. His claim for costs and expenses was dismissed due to the fact that he had not provided relevant documents to support his claims. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Violation of Article 13 Medov v. Russia (no. 1573/02) The applicant, Suyleyman Akberdovich Medov, is a Russian national who was born in 1958. Formerly a resident of Grozny, Chechnya, he is currently living in Ingushetia.   On 23 January 2000, Mr Medov was arrested in Grozny on suspicion of having participated in an attack on Russian servicemen in October 1999 in the village of Chervlenaya (Chechnya). He alleged that he was first taken to a military camp where he was put in a pit in the ground. He spent the night there, the temperature being no more than 3ºC, and was beaten, kicked and had rocks and cold water thrown at him. He spent the next 24 hours in two different lorries before being taken to the Chernokozovo Detention Centre on 25 January 2000. He claimed that he was subjected there to severe ill-treatment by guards. On one occasion he was hit so hard on the head with a rifle butt that it had left a deep wound which was still clearly visible three months later. As a result of the regular beatings, he was left with a broken nose, fractured ribs and numerous bruises. On 18 February he was transferred to a pre-trial detention centre in Pyatigorsk (“SIZO no. 2”) and then, on 22 February, to Stavroprol (“SIZO No. 1”). He was again subjected to ill-treatment in both those facilities, notably on arrival he had to run down a corridor lined with soldiers who beat him. In Chernokozovo and Stavropol he was also subjected to interrogations when he was beaten in order to try to force him to sign a confession. On 3 May 2000 the applicant was released from custody following the Amnesty Act of December 1999. On 7 December 2000 he lodged a complaint with Grozny Town Prosecutor’s Office about his ill-treatment while in detention. He requested that an investigation be carried out and that he be awarded compensation. The NGO Human Rights Watch also made numerous requests for progress to be made with the investigation. Following investigations, Pyatigorsk and Stavropol Town Prosecutors decided on 21 February and 20 March 2001, respectively, that no criminal proceedings would be brought. No separate investigation has, however, been carried out concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment upon his arrest and in Chernokozovo. In March and May 2001 he was examined by doctors who observed a scar on the left side of his head, healed fractures, apathy and anxiety.   The Government denied the applicant’s allegations. They stated that he had been examined by medical staff upon admission to the pre-trial detention centres in Chernokozovo, Pyatigorsk and Stavropol and that no injuries had been recorded apart from a bruise on his shoulder. They stressed that records showed other detainees with more serious injuries, which proved their accuracy. The applicant had not sought medical assistance while in detention and had not complained of ill-treatment.   Relying, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Medov complained that he was subjected to severe ill-treatment while in detention. He also complained about the lack of an effective investigation into those allegations.   The Court found that the applicant, despite having been assisted by a number of human rights associations, had not appealed against the decisions to not bring criminal proceedings concerning his detention between 18 February and 3 May 2000 in Pyatigorsk and Stavropol. As he had, therefore, failed to use all legal remedies available at national level, the Court dismissed that complaint.   As concerned the applicant’s detention between 23 January and 18 February 2000, the Court noted that the applicant had not sought medical assistance while in detention, nor immediately upon release. The medical reports of March and May 2001 did not refer to when or how the injuries could have been caused. On the other hand, medical reports had been drawn up in all three detention centres and did not refer to any injuries or complaints. The only evidence therefore in support of the applicant’s ill-treatment was his statements and those of his wife and sister-in-law; his former cell-mates could no longer be identified as he had only first lodged his complaint on 7 December 2000. The Court therefore found that, on the basis of the evidence submitted to it, it could not establish to the required standard of proof that the applicant’s injuries had been sustained through ill-treatment while in detention. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 3 concerning ill-treatment.   On the other hand, the Court considered that the applicant’s complaints concerning that period should have raised a reasonable suspicion that his injuries could have been caused by representatives of the State and that the matter should have been duly brought before the competent authorities. The Court also considered that the publicly available information about widespread abuse in Chernokozovo Detention Centre at that time had put the relevant authorities under a special obligation to carry out an effective investigation. However, no investigation into the applicant's allegations had ever been carried out and no procedural decision had been taken to date. In such circumstances the Court concluded that the authorities had failed to carry out a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant’s arguable complaints of ill-treatment while in detention in violation of Article 3.   Given the finding that the domestic inquiry had been inadequate, any other remedy, including the claim for damages, had limited chances of success. The Court therefore found that that Mr Medov had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment, and that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Mr Medov was awarded EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) de La Fuente Ariza v. Spain (no. 3321/04) The applicant, Jorge Héctor de La Fuente Ariza, is a Spanish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Madrid (Spain). He was a representative of the company Metales Preciosos Madrileños S.A, which specialised in wholesale gold trading.   Criminal proceedings were brought against Mr de La Fuente Ariza for presumed offences against the State Treasury and forgery. Assisted by a lawyer, he submitted observations on several occasions and presented the authorities with various items of evidence, including witness statements. In a decision of 7 April 2000, the Spanish courts accepted some of the evidence produced, dismissing others on account of their lack of relevance. They added that no appeal lay against the decision. In December 2000 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to six months and one day’s imprisonment, a judgment which was upheld on appeal in July 2002. The amparo appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed on the ground that other remedies had not been exhausted, in that he had not submitted a súplica appeal, provided for by legislation, against the decision of 7 April 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleged, among other things, that this dismissal on the ground of failure to exhaust other remedies had amounted to excessive interference in his right of access to a court.   The Court considered, in particular, that the dismissal of the amparo appeal for non-exhaustion of other remedies, in that Mr de La Fuente Ariza had not lodged an appeal against a decision which had specifically stated that no appeal lay against it, should, at the least, be described as a lack of judicial certainty. It held that that dismissal had deprived the applicant of his right of access to a court and consequently concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Fitisov v. Russia (no. 41842/04) OOO PKG “Sib-YUKASS” v. Russia (no. 34283/05) The Court found violations in the cases above, concerning national judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour which had not been enforced in good time or at all.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Maslenkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 50954/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia (no. 11548/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Stojkovic v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 14818/02)     ***   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.