CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 décembre 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 } .sC6C0EBF2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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   886 6.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Poland, Romania, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 29 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Nikoghosyan v. Armenia (application no. 11724/04) The applicants, Nelsida Nikoghosyan and Gvidon Melkonyan, are Armenian nationals who were born in 1976 and 1933 respectively and live in Hnaberd (Armenia). The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that a hearing in June 2003 relating to a dispute over property they had bought had been held in their absence. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and noted that the most appropriate form of redress would be to reopen the proceedings and re-examine the case in line with the requirements of a fair trial. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Karmo v. Bulgaria (no. 76965/01) The applicant, Hisham Ibrahim Karmo, is a Syrian national who was born in 1969. He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Bulgaria following his conviction in March 1996 for the murder of a taxi driver. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention and awarded Mr   Karmo 1,200   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   98 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 de Franchis v. France (no. 15589/05) The applicants are Andrea de Franchis, an Italian national, and his wife Marielle Achache, a French national. The case concerned a dispute about two housing loans taken out by the applicants from the Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that it was not necessary to examine separately a complaint under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). It awarded the applicants EUR   20,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ledru v. France (no. 38615/02) The applicant, Christian Ledru, is a French national who was born in 1945 and lives in Cannes-la-Boca (France). The case concerned proceedings in which the applicant claimed damages for breach of a contract of employment. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr   Ledru. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 8 (1 st applicant) Struck out (2 nd applicant) Chair and J.B. v. Germany (no. 69735/01) The applicants are Abdellatif Chair, a Moroccan national who was born in 1962, and his wife, Mrs J.B. who is a German national. They have a daughter who was born in 1997. In September 2004 Mr Chair was expelled from Germany to Morocco on account of his conviction for rape. The case concerned Mr Chair’s complaint that his expulsion had interfered with his right to the enjoyment of his family life. The Court decided, by six votes to one, to strike out the application in so far as it concerned Ms J.B. as she had notified the Court in February 2007 that she wished to withdraw her complaint. The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) with regard to Mr Chair. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Sampsonidis and Others v. Greece (no. 2834/05) The 354 applicants are all Greek nationals or trading companies with registered offices in Greece. Their complaints concerned expropriation of their land. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), on account of an infringement of the applicants’ right of access to a court, and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), on the ground that the domestic courts had refused to award them special compensation for the non-expropriated parts off their land. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 was not yet ready for decision and reserved the whole of that question. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Tsivis v. Greece (no. 11553/05) The applicant, Ioannis Tsivis, is a Greek national who was born in 1958 and lives in Heraklion (Crete). He complained that criminal proceedings against him on a charge of misappropriation had been excessively lengthy. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and awarded Mr   Tsivis EUR   10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Z.A.N.T.E. - Marathonisi A.E. v. Greece (no. 14216/03) The applicant company, Z.A.N.T.E. - Marathonisi A.E., is a limited company with its registered office in Athens. The case concerned actions for compensation it brought in connection with a dispute about an island it had purchased. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 was not yet ready for decision and reserved the whole of that question. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Súsanna Rós Westlund v. Iceland (no. 42628/04) The applicant, Súsanna Rós Westlund, is an Icelandic national who was born in 1964 and lives in Hafnarfjördur (Iceland). In 1999 the applicant sold a house in Reykjavik to Mr G. who subsequently brought compensation proceedings against her due to defects caused by a leak in the roof. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that she had not been allowed to make written or oral submissions to the Supreme Court because Mr G. had opted not to take part in the proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the absence of an oral hearing and awarded Mrs Westlund EUR   2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   18,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 8 Jasiński v. Poland (no. 72976/01) The applicant, Andrzej Jasiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Kamińsk (Poland). On 16 August 1999 the applicant was involved in a brawl outside a bar in Suwałki (Poland) and was arrested. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he had been beaten by police officers both during and after his arrest and that the investigation into those allegations had been inadequate. He also complained about censorship of his correspondence with the Court. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation). It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and awarded Mr Jasiński EUR   500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Beian v. Romania (no. 30658/05) The applicant, Aurel Beian, is a Romanian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Sancraiu de Mureş (Romania). He alleged in particular that he had not had a fair hearing in proceedings relating to the granting of a social benefit for forced labour he had been required to provide during his military service. He further complained of discriminatory treatment in relation to other people placed in a similar situation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the contradictory case-law of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. It awarded Mr Beian EUR   5,000   for all heads of damage taken together. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Kozinets v. Ukraine (no. 75520/01) The applicant, Valeriy Yuryevich Kozinets, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). At the relevant time he was the director of a private company. In 1996, the company was the subject of a tax inspection. In April 1998 the applicant was invited to go to Kharkiv State Tax Police Inspectorate to retrieve documents which had been seized for the purposes of the inspection. He alleged that, when there, S., the Head of the Tax Police Inspectorate, had beaten him. Medical examinations reported that the applicant had suffered from bruising and concussion, however it was impossible to   establish when such injuries   had occurred. The criminal proceedings brought against S. were discontinued in August 2002. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he had been ill-treated by S. and that the investigation by the Ukrainian authorities into his allegations had been inadequate. The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) concerning the ill-treatment but, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) concerning the investigation. It further held unanimously that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Mr Kozinets was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   237,88 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Volovik v. Ukraine (no. 15123/03) The applicant, Yuriy Timofeyevich Volovik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Zaporizhzhya (Ukraine). The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint about the lack of access to a court in civil proceedings in which he claimed a special pension following the death of his son in 1993 as the result of an accident on duty in the Russian army. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bălănescu v. Romania (no. 60489/00) Cohen v. Romania (no. 38538/02) Drăculeţ v. Romania (no. 20294/02) Engber v. Romania (no. 4632/03) Ilutiu v. Romania (no. 18898/02) In the above five cases the applicants brought proceedings to recover property and set aside contracts of sale to the State. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the Engber case it further held that it was not necessary to examine the merits of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aleksandrova v. Russia (no. 28965/02) Boldyreva v. Russia (no. 23542/04) Kharitich v. Russia (no. 21268/04) Krivonos v. Russia (no. 37641/04) Ustalov v. Russia (no. 24770/04) Baladina v. Ukraine (no. 16092/05) The Court found the above violations in these six cases concerning the failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour 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.   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) Josephides v. Cyprus (no. 33761/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Alexiou v. Greece (no. 26682/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Giannetaki E. & S. Metaforiki Ltd and Giannetakis v. Greece (no. 29829/05) Karahalios v. Greece (No. 7) (no. 6480/06) Karahalios v. Greece (No. 8) (no. 7865/06)     ***   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.