CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 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 } .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   936 20.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania, Russia, Sweden “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 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) Paykar Yev Haghtanak Ltd v. Armenia (application no. 21638/03) The applicant, Paykar Yev Haghtanak Ltd, is a private trading company in Yerevan (Armenia). As a result of a tax inspection in 2001 the applicant company had proceedings brought against it for tax arrears. Its property and assets were frozen. The case concerned, in particular, the applicant company’s complaint that its cassation appeal was not examined due to its failure to pay court fees. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in that the applicant company had been denied access to a court, and awarded it 1,200   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   25 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Phinikaridou v. Cyprus (no. 23890/02) The applicant, Yannoula Phinikaridou, is a Cypriot national who was born an illegitimate child in 1945. She lives in Nicosia. In 1997, at the age of 52, she found out the name of her biological father. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the proceedings she brought for judicial recognition of paternity were time-barred. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,496.41 for costs and expenses. It further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Iosif and Others v. Romania (no. 10443/03) Aurel Iosif, his wife Doina-Maria Iosif and their daughter Daliana-Magdalena Boboşilă-Iosif are Romanian nationals who were born in 1938, 1942 and 1969 respectively and live in Bucharest. In 1995 the applicants took out a mortgage on their holiday house to guarantee a loan granted to a third party. The case related to the action brought by the applicants seeking termination of the mortgage agreement and to the enforcement proceedings brought by the bank for non-payment of the guarantee. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) with regard to the dismissal of the applicants’ action on the ground of their failure to pay a security of almost EUR   134,000 for bringing the action. It considered it unnecessary to rule on the complaint concerning the refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to refer the case to the Constitutional Court and the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The Court held that, if the applicants so wished, Romania must ensure that the proceedings were reopened. It awarded the applicants EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 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 Miclici v. Romania (no. 23657/03) Marian Miclici is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Montreal (Canada). In 2000, he was dismissed from his post as vice-president of the Dolj health insurance office. The case concerned the applicant’s inability to secure enforcement of a decision dated December 2000 ordering his reinstatement in his post and payment of the salary due to him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It awarded the applicant EUR   2,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR   3,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Nikolov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 41195/02) The applicant, Zlatko Nikolov, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Štip (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). He is a dairy farmer. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of proceedings with respect to a dispute over payment of insurance following the death of one of his cows. He alleged, in particular, that his case was not heard by an impartial tribunal as the trial judge’s wife had been employed by the defendant insurance company shortly after the proceedings had started. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to an impartial tribunal). It also held that it was not necessary to consider the applicant’s further complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court made no award under Article 41 as the applicant had failed to submit any claim for just satisfaction. (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 Breţcanu v. Romania (no. 24471/04) The applicants complained that their right of property had been infringed on account of the dismissal of their action for recovery of possession of their property.   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Kocsis v. Romania (no. 10395/02) The application concerns the length of proceedings and the failure to enforce a final court decision dated May 2003 granting the applicant a parental leave allowance.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Aleksandr Zhukov v. Russia (no. 35760/04) Ptashko v. Ukraine (no. 6974/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Gaykovych v. Ukraine (no. 38931/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Nefedov v. Ukraine (30855/05) The Court found the above violations in the four cases above concerning the domestic authorities’ 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 complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Rey and Others v. Sweden (no. 17350/03) Lebedeva v. Ukraine (no. 18345/03)     ***   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.