CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 mars 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 } .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 } .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   193 18.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Moldova, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11   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 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (application no. 3052/04) The applicant company is a four star hotel, the “Dacia”, in Chişinău.   In 1997 a privatisation act was adopted by Parliament and the Dacia, then owned by the State, was auctioned. The company “Selikat-Mix” won the auction and concluded a contract with the Department for the Privatisation of State Property in February 1999. In January 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office brought court proceedings in the interest of the State against Selikat-Mix and the Department, seeking to annul the privatisation of the hotel and to repay the purchase price to the applicant company. The Prosecutor General later requested the court to designate Dacia   S.R.L. as defendant in the case, given that Selikat-Mix had ceased to exist. On 6   June 2003 the Economic Court of Moldova ultimately accepted the Prosecutor General’s request and annulled the privatisation on the ground that it had been unlawful. Dacia   S.R.L. was ordered to return the hotel to the State Chancellery and the Ministry of Finance was ordered to pay to the applicant company the initial price paid for the hotel.   The case concerned the applicant company’s complaint about the annulment of the privatisation of its hotel without compelling reasons and the unfairness of the ensuing legal proceedings. The applicant company relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been an interference with Dacia   S.R.L.’s property rights. The Court observed that the applicant company had lost ownership of its hotel and the underlying land, as well as various related investments, and had received in return only the initial price paid for the hotel. On the question of whether that interference was justified, the Court found, in particular, that the irregularities observed by the Economic Court of Moldova were unsubstantiated and not attributable to Dacia   S.R.L. Even assuming that the taking of the property could be shown to serve some public interest, the Court found that the applicant company bore and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   The Court further held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the breach of the principles of equality of arms and legal certainty.   Finally, it held that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision. (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 Velocci v. Italy (application no. 1717/03) In this case the applicants complained about the unlawfulness of the authorities’ occupation of their land without any formal expropriation or compensation. The Court found the above violation and considered that it did not need to examine separately the applicants’ complaint under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gümüşoğlu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 40/02, 41/02 and 42/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the three applicants’ complaint that the authorities had deprived them of their property without paying compensation. The Court awarded EUR   29,000 to Tevfik Gümüşoğlu, EUR   28,000 to Hasan Süslü and EUR   33,000 to Münip Uslu in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,200, jointly, for costs and expenses.     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) Maio v. Italy (no. 24886/03) Wilczynski v. Poland (no. 35760/06) Eliáš v. Slovakia (no. 21326/07) Pobijaková v. Slovakia (no. 45148/06) Pekinel v. Turkey (no. 9939/02) Yıldırım and Others v. Turkey (nos. 16456/03 and 8138/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Dolhar v. Slovenia (no. 66822/01) Gerden v. Slovenia (no. 44581/98)     ***   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) 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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.