CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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   821 22.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, France, Romania and Ukraine     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight 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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Nedelcho Popov v. Bulgaria (application no. 61360/00) The applicant, Nedelcho Miloshev Popov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Sofia.   From March 1991 Mr Popov was employed as an adviser in the “local administration and regional policy” department of the Council of Ministers. Following the expiry of one of his fixed-term contracts on 30 June 1997, Mr Popov continued to work. As his employer did not object, he considered that his contract had been transformed into an employment agreement of indefinite term. However, on 29 July 1997 he was served with an order which terminated his employment agreement as of 30   July 1997.   At the time of the applicant’s dismissal, he could not bring proceedings for unfair dismissal due to the fact that, under Article 360 § 2 (2)(a) of the Bulgarian Labour Code, the domestic courts did not have jurisdiction to review disputes concerning dismissals from certain posts in the Council of Ministers, including the posts which the applicant had held. The applicant brought administrative and civil proceedings in March and July 1998 in which, in particular, he requested that the order for his dismissal be declared null and void and that he receive compensation. All his requests were, ultimately, rejected .   In a judgment of 30 April 1998, the Constitutional Court declared the restriction in Article   360 § 2 (2)(a) of the Labour Code in respect of certain posts, including posts which the applicant had held, to be unconstitutional. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Popov complained that he was denied access to a tribunal which was competent to examine whether he had been unfairly dismissed.   Given that the Constitutional Court had admitted in its judgment of 30   April 1998 that the restriction imposed by Article 360 § 2 (2)(a) had been in violation of both domestic law and a number of international conventions, including Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him 2,500   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) S.C.I. Plélo-Cadiou v. France (no. 12876/04) The applicant company, S.C.I. Plélo-Cadiou, is a real-estate investment partnership with its registered office in Rouen (France).   The case concerns a dispute involving commercial premises of which it rented out. In 1996 the applicant company brought proceedings against a court-appointed administrator. It appealed against a judgment of September 1997, criticising among other things the evaluation of its loss. The proceedings culminated in the dismissal of its appeal on points of law by the Commercial, Financial and Economic Division of the Court of Cassation in February 2002.   The applicant company, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, complained in particular about a lack of fairness in the proceedings on account of the failure to transmit to the company or to its lawyers the report of the reporting judge at the Court of Cassation, which had apparently been transmitted to the advocate-general.   The Court observed that there was no evidence in the case file, particularly having regard to the date on which the case was set down for hearing in the Court of Cassation, that the applicant company had been able to benefit from a new practice providing for notification of the reporting judge’s report, as described by the Government. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company and awarded it EUR 1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine (no. 22603/02) The applicant, the Ukraine-Tyumen Joint Stock Company, is a Ukrainian joint venture based in Kyiv with separate legal entity. It was founded in September 1995 following a proposal by the Governor of the Tyumen Region of the Russian Federation for strengthening trade links between Ukraine and the Tyumen Region. The Ukrainian authorities had shares in the applicant company.   In August 1996 title of a building in Kyiv was transferred to the applicant company on the instructions of the Ukrresursy State Enterprise and the State Property Fund of Ukraine, a co-founder of the applicant company. In October 1998 Kyiv City State Administration brought proceedings in which it sought to regain possession of that building. In a decision of 29 December 1998 the building was ordered to be given back to the City Administration. A decision was taken on 11 March 1999 which quashed the decision of December 1998. That decision was, however, quashed on supervisory review in February 2001.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complained about the quashing by way of supervisory review of the decision of 11 March 1999 in its favour.   The Court noted that it had already found violations in similar cases concerning the quashing of final and binding judgments by way of supervisory review. In the absence of any special factors which could justify the use of supervisory review in the applicant’s case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court further noted that the applicant company had acquired the building without knowing that the State Property Fund had not had power to transfer it and it had therefore had a legitimate expectation to use the building as part of its commercial operations. Consequently, the quashing of the transfer of the building had deprived the applicant company of part of its assets. There had been no suggestion that the applicant company could have been compensated for that loss. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It dismissed the applicant company’s claim for non-pecuniary damage and held that its claim for pecuniary damage under Article 41 was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sfrijan v. Romania (no. 20366/04) In this case the applicant complained about the annulment of a final judicial decision in her favour following an appeal by the procurator general.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Checha v. Ukraine (no. 5326/04)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 13 Zaichenko v. Ukraine (no. 29875/02) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or not at all. The Court considered it unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in the case of Checha .     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The Court considered it unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in the case of Kiselyova .     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) SC Concept Ltd SRL et Manole v. Romania (no. 42907/02) Kiselyova v. Ukraine (no. 21047/02)   ***   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.