CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   143 28.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] .     No violation of Article 6 Demebukov v. Bulgaria (application no. 68020/01) The applicant, Georgi Borisov Demebukov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   In October 1997 Mr Demebukov was charged with the theft of some electricity cables from the village of Brod (Bulgaria), where he was living at that time, and ordered not to leave the village. He subsequently moved to Plovdiv without authorisation from the Public Prosecutor’s Office. As a result, the courts were unable to serve the applicant with summonses to attend hearings and decided to examine the case in his absence. In November 1998, he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to reopen the criminal proceedings. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that his trial was held in his absence and that he was refused a re-trial. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant had wilfully made himself unavailable to be informed about or participate in the criminal proceedings against him at the trial stage. Moreover, up until the preliminary investigation, the applicant had been assisted by a lawyer and should therefore reasonably have been able to foresee the consequences of leaving his village without authorisation. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Andĕlová v. the Czech Republic (no. 995/06) The applicant, Valerie Andělová, is a Czech national who was born in 1961 and lives in Nová Ves (Czech Republic). She has a daughter, born in 1994. The child’s father was granted custody in 2001.   The case concerned proceedings brought several years ago by the applicant regarding parental authority over her daughter. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained of failure to enforce her right of contact with her daughter, which had initially been granted her by an interim measure in March 2002 and later in August 2003, and of her inability to take part in her daughter’s upbringing for five years. In that connection she complained that the courts had not taken sufficiently swift action regarding the failure of the child’s father to comply with the interim measure and that she had had only one hour’s contact with her daughter per month, in the presence of her ex-husband.   The Court noted that the meetings between the applicant and her daughter did not take place in the conditions stipulated in the interim measure. It also noted that the experts had on several occasions underscored the importance of the child remaining in contact with both her parents, and that the passage of time had had adverse consequences for the applicant. Accordingly, the Court found that the national authorities had omitted to take adequate and sufficient measures to enforce the applicant’s right of contact so as to allow her to re-establish relations with her daughter. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded Mrs Andělová 4,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,700 for costs and expenses, less the EUR   850 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine (no. 37878/02) The applicant, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church of the village of Sosulivka ( Tserkva Sela Sosulivka ), is a religious group belonging to the patriarchate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church ( Українська греко-католицька церква села Сосулівка Чортківського району Тернопільської області ).   In a decision of 26 June 1997 Ternopil Regional State Administration granted the applicant Church the right to share the Sosulivka Church with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate ( Української Православної Церкви Київського Патріархату ). On 10   July 1997 the applicant Church signed an agreement with Chortkiv District Administration on the use of the village church. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church refused, however, to comply with that decision or agreement and prevented the applicant Church from using the village church. The case concerned the applicant Church’s complaint that, in the ensuing legal proceedings, it could not obtain the transfer of the church premises for its sole use. The applicant Church relied on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted, in particular, that only one church had been available for use in Sosulivka and that the Bailiffs’ Service and the State Administration Services had been unable to assist the applicant Church in settling the dispute with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Furthermore, those authorities had undertaken no effective measures in order to enforce the decision of 26   June 1997 or the contract of 10   July   1997. The applicant Church had therefore had no choice but to seek judicial protection of its rights. Those proceedings were, however, unsuccessful as the Ukrainian courts, either general or commercial, had found that they did not have jurisdiction to decide on the matter. In the Court’s view, that situation had amounted to a denial of justice which had impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Given that finding, the Court further held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   13. The applicant Church was awarded EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     ***   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) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.