CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 février 2008

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5DD26361 { font-family:Arial; color:#808080 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   87 7.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 33 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment 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 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (application no. 55861/00) The applicant, Svetoslav Dimitrov Dimitrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in   1972 and lives in Hisar (Bulgaria).   Between 1995 and 1999 Mr   Dimitrov was convicted on three occasions of theft. On 12   May 1999 he was detained to serve the outstanding part of his sentence for the third conviction. Ultimately, he was released on 4 February 2000. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention between 12   May 1999 and 4   February 2000, as he alleged that he had already served all the sentences imposed on him by the Bulgarian courts. He relied on Article   5 (right to liberty and security) §§   1, 4   and   5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights considered, in particular, that Mr   Dimitrov was detained for a period of eight months and 24   days directly as a result of the lack of sufficiently precise provisions in domestic law. It therefore held unanimously there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1. The Court also held unanimously that there has been a violation of Article   5 §   4 because the domestic legislation did not give the applicant the right to challenge before a court of law the lawfulness of his detention. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   5 on account of the lack of an enforceable right to compensation under Bulgarian law for the applicant’s deprivation of liberty. The Court awarded Mr   Dimitrov 5,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Yankov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 70728/01) The applicant, Todor Antimov Yankov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   The case concerned two sets of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in   1996 which were adjourned on account of his state of health. Under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that the length of those proceedings had been excessive.   The Court observed that the deterioration of the applicant’s state of health had been an objective obstacle blocking the progress of the two prosecutions for three years in the first case and two years and eight months in the second case. It noted however that the prosecuting authorities had been responsible for a number of lengthy delays in each of the cases. It found on that account that the two cases against the applicant, which had lasted eight years and two months in the first case and nine years and ten months in the second, had exceeded a reasonable time and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. It likewise held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 and awarded Mr   Yankov EUR   3,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Friendly settlement Dymáček and Dymáčková v. the Czech Republic (no. 35098/03) The applicants, Josef Dymáček and Františka Dymáčková, are Czech nationals who were born in 1942 and 1945 respectively and live in Hovorany (Czech Republic).   The applicants complained under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) that they had been deprived of possessions acquired in good faith and in accordance with the national legislation without being paid adequate compensation.   The case was struck out of the Court’s list after a friendly settlement had been reached. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Arsenovici v. Romania (no. 77210/01) Tarik v. Romania (no. 75849/01) The applicants are a Romanian national and a German national. Zoe Delia Arsenovici was born in 1918 and lives in Bucharest. Speranţa Tarik was born in 1944 and lives in Remscheid (Germany).   The Romanian courts allowed claims lodged by Mrs   Tarik and Mrs   Arsenovici in 1994 and 1997 respectively for the recovery of real property in Bucharest. Subsequent applications for eviction orders against the tenants were refused on the ground that they had failed to comply with the formalities laid down in the applicable legislation.   Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that as a result of the application of the relevant statutory provisions they had been unable for a prolonged period to dispose of a block of flats and to receive rent for them. In the Tarik case the applicant further complained under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial), that the proceedings relating to the eviction proceedings she had brought against the occupiers of her flat had not been fair.   The Court considered that the restrictions on the applicants’ use of their property over a number of years had failed to strike a fair balance between protection of the individual’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and the requirements of the general interest. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. In the Tarik case it held that it was not necessary to examine the merits of the complaint under Article   6 §   1 and awarded Mrs   Tarik EUR   8,000 for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage. As Mrs   Arsenovici had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court decided to make no sum award. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Beian v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 4113/03) The applicants, Aurel Beian and Elena Beian, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1932 and 1942 respectively and live in Sâncraiu de Mureş (Romania).   They complained in particular of an infringement of their right of access to a court, on account of the Romanian courts’ decision to declare an action they had brought to recover a sum of money void for failure to pay EUR   330 in stamp duty. They relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the amount the applicants had been required to pay to bring their action had been manifestly very high in relation to their practical situation since it came to more than twice their entire monthly income, which was lower than the net average salary in Romania at the material time. The Court further noted that the applicants had not had the possibility of being granted an exemption from stamp duty on account of their insufficient means and observed that it had previously found the Romanian national system to be unsatisfactory in that respect. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1, held that it was not necessary to rule on the merits of the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and awarded the applicants EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 Konolos v. Romania (no. 26600/02) The applicant, Gheorghe Konolos, is a Romanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Liège (Belgium).   While working as a company administrator the applicant was remanded in custody in January 2000 on suspicion of deception, tax evasion, forgery and making use of forgeries. Relying on Article   5 §   1 (right to liberty and security), he complained that his pre-trial detention between April and August 2002 had been unlawful.   The Court considered that during the period in question the applicant’s detention had not been based on any valid domestic decision or any other “lawful” basis for the purposes of Article   5 §   1. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of that Article and awarded Mr   Konolos EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Açıkgöz v. Slovenia (no. 28936/02) The applicant, Ali Açıkgöz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Austria.   In 1987 Mr Açıkgöz was involved in a serious car accident as a result of which one person died. Criminal proceedings were brought against him for reckless driving. He was ultimately acquitted in 1999. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, in breach of Articles   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the disputed proceedings had lasted six years and two months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that that duration was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 and awarded Mr   Açıkgöz EUR   1,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,005 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.   1 Kovach v. Ukraine (no. 39424/02) The applicant, Mykola Mykolayovych Kovach, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Uzhgorod (Ukraine). He stood as a candidate in the 2002 parliamentary elections in a constituency in the Zakarpattya region.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of the procedure to count votes in his constituency. He relied on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections).   The Court held, in particular, that the decision by an Electoral Commission to annul the vote in four electoral divisions had to be considered as arbitrary and not proportionate to any legitimate aim pleaded by the Government. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 and awarded Mr   Kovach 8,000   EUR for 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 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Brătulescu v. Romania (no. 6206/03) In this case the Court found the above violations on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour in good time.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Buttu and Bobulescu v. Romania (I) (no. 20517/02) Buttu and Bobulescu v. Romania (II) (no. 20532/02) Episcopia Română Unită cu Roma Oradea v. Romania (no. 26879/02) Iring v. Romania (no. 34783/02) Krajcsovics and Others v. Romania (no. 38023/02) Mosoiu and Păsărin v. Romania (no. 10245/02) Răţeanu v. Romania (no. 18729/05) Reuniunea de Ajutor pentru Înmormântare Fratelia v. Romania (no. 35803/03) S.C. Sefer S.A. v. Romania (no. 27784/04) Silimon and Gross v. Romania (no. 19372/06) Ţeţu v. Romania (no. 10108/02) Vodă and Bob v. Romania (no. 7976/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cherebetiu and Pop v. Romania (no. 36476/03) The above 13 applications concerned actions brought by the applicants for the recovery of real property. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. In the Cherebetiu and Pop case the Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gâgă v. Romania (no. 42792/02) Şerbănescu v. Romania (no. 33945/04) In these two cases the applicants complained that the Supreme Court had set aside final judgments in their favour, alleging that this infringed the principle of legal certainty and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   6 §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) SC PLASTIK ABC SA v. Romania (no. 32299/03) In this case the applicant company complained of the prejudice it had suffered when the Supreme Court set aside a final judgment in its favour. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   6 §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and awarded the applicant company EUR   140,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Agaponova and Others v. Russia (no. 34439/04) Cherkashin v. Russia (no. 7412/02) Gladyshev and Others v. Russia (no. 20430/04) Kostenko v. Russia (no. 23490/03) Sidnev v. Ukraine (no. 15145/05) The Court found the above violations in these cases concerning the failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or not at all. In the case of Gladyshev and Others the Court declared inadmissible the complaints of the applicant Lyudmila Nikolayevna Voronina.     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) Tseronis v. Greece (no. 18607/05) Parizov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 14258/03)   ***   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.