CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 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 } .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   917 13.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Germany, Romania, Russia, Slovenia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 25 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gashi v. Croatia (application no. 32457/05) The applicant, Shani Gashi, was a Croatian national who was born in 1962 and lived in Pula (Croatia). He died in April 2007. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the contract for a flat he had bought from Pula Municipality had been annulled by the domestic authorities in February 2001. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 5 § 1 Two violations of Article 5 § 4 Mooren v. Germany (no. 11364/03) The applicant, Burghard Theodor Mooren, is a German national who was born in 1963 and was living in Mönchengladbach (Germany) at the time of his application to the Court. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention following his arrest in July 2002 on suspicion of tax evasion. The Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security). The Court held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of speedy review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention and the refusal to grant access to the case files in those review proceedings. The applicant was awarded 1,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Valer Pop v. Romania (no. 26511/04) The applicant, Valer Pop, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Mangalia (Romania). Under a final decision taken in the context of his early retirement from the army, he was ordered to reimburse sums of money that had been lawfully obtained. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and awarded the applicant approximately EUR 1,630 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 10 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 7 Akın Birdal v. Turkey (no. 47520/99) The applicant, Akın Birdal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara. A State Security Court, which included, in particular, a military judge, sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment for having given a speech in 1996 criticising the policy implemented in the south-east of Turkey. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 6 § 1 (right to an independent and impartial court) and that there had been no violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law). It awarded the applicant EUR 5,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Dağtekin and Others v. Turkey (no. 70516/01) The applicants are five Turkish nationals who live in Şanlıurfa (Turkey). The case concerned, in particular, the unfairness of proceedings in which the applicants complained that their right to lease farming land in south-east Turkey had been cancelled in 1997 following a security investigation. The applicants particularly alleged that the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture had refused to submit documents to the domestic courts on the grounds that national security was at risk. The application in respect of Mr   Dağtekin was declared inadmissible. As regards the four remaining applicants, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and awarded them EUR   6,500, each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey (no. 40998/98) The applicant, the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, is an Iranian shipping company registered in Teheran. The case concerned the seizure in October 1991 by the Turkish authorities of the Cape Maleas , a Cypriot-owned vessel chartered by the applicant company. The applicant company complained, in particular, that the seizure of the vessel and its cargo had amounted to an unjustified control of property. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and awarded the applicant company EUR 35,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bakay v. Turkey (no. 9464/02) Çem v. Turkey (no. 4819/02) Öz and Nas v. Turkey (nos. 31941/03 and 31944/03) Uğuz v. Turkey (no. 31932/03) Uysal and Osal v. Turkey (no. 1206/03) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Özcan v. Turkey (no. 2209/03) The applicants are eight Turkish nationals. The cases concerned the applicants’ complaints about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against them for membership or suspected membership of illegal organisations. The Court held unanimously that, in all six cases, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and a further violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in the case of Özcan . The Court awarded the applicants a total of EUR   40,000 (sums ranging from EUR 1,000 to EUR 9,500) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and a total of EUR   1,700 (in respect of three cases) for costs and expenses. (The Bakay , Çem and Uysal and Osal judgments are in English. The Öz and Nas , Özcan and Uğuz judgments are in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Romanova v. Ukraine (no. 33089/02) The applicant, Tatyana Leonidovna Romanova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Mykolayv (Ukraine). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of proceedings she had brought following her dismissal from a post with a maintenance company of a Ukrainian University. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the applicant’s case not having been considered by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The applicant was awarded EUR 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 65 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Tkachev v. Ukraine (no. 39458/02) The applicant, Kirill Aleksandrovich Tkachev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Zhvyrka (Ukraine). The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint about the unreasonable length (just over two years) of his detention on remand on charges of murder, armed robbery, arson and membership of a criminal gang. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (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 Suciu Werle v. Romania (no. 26521/05) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint about proceedings she had brought to recover property and set aside contracts of sale to the State.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Karakaş and Tandoğan v. Turkey (nos. 33452/02 and 33457/02) The application concerned delays in the payment of supplementary compensation for expropriated assets. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It considered that the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them a total of EUR   23,700 for pecuniary damage.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kenar v. Turkey (no. 67215/01) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that his case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Sinitsyna v. Russia (no. 2814/04) Kolnoochenko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 12636/03, 14118/03, 33393/03 and 36734/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Kachanov v. Ukraine (no. 9062/04) The above three cases concerned the domestic courts’ 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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Angelova v. Russia (no. 33820/04) Şencan v. Turkey (no. 7436/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Šakanovič v. Slovenia (no. 32989/02) Šramel v. Slovenia (no. 39154/02) Tomažič v. Slovenia (no. 38350/02)     ***   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.