CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 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 } .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   204 20.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and   Greece   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Bartenbach v. Austria (application no. 39120/03) The applicants, Hanno and Helmut Bartenbach, are Austrian nationals who were born in 1959 and 1940, respectively. Hanno   Bartenbach lives in Bludenz and Helmut   Bartenbach in Bürs in Austria. They own a painting company together.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the length and unfairness of criminal proceedings against them for illegally employing a Turkish citizen in June 1997, in which they were ultimately ordered to pay fines. The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted, in particular, that the proceedings had lasted over five years. It found that period excessive and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a further violation of Article   6 §   1 concerning the applicants’ right to a fair hearing. The applicants were awarded, jointly, 3,600   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,687.42 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ivan Hristov v. Bulgaria (no. 32461/02) The applicant, Ivan Angelov Hristov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Pleven (Bulgaria). At the relevant time, he owned a flour-mill.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of two sets of criminal proceedings against him: the first for providing banking services without a licence and the second for, in particular, fraud and forgery. Both sets of proceedings were ultimately discontinued. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted, in particular, that the first set of proceedings had lasted almost nine years and the second more than seven years. It found those periods excessive and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. Mr   Hristov was awarded EUR   8,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Alvanos and Others v. Greece (no. 38731/05) The applicants, Menelaos Alvanos, Michail Bekiaris, Charalambos Chainas, Evristheas Stavrou and Pavlos Thomaidis, are Greek nationals.   They were made redundant when the North Aegean Petroleum Company , which exploited the oil fields in the Gulf of Kavala (Greece), ceased its activities. Kavala Oil undertook to continue exploiting the oil fields concerned. In August 2003 the domestic courts dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicants challenging Kavala Oil’s refusal to employ them. Relying on Article 6   §   1 (right of access to a court), they complained, in particular, of a decision of the Court of Cassation declaring their appeal inadmissible because it was too vague.   The Court found that in dismissing the appeal for such reasons of form the Court of Cassation had failed to address the specific issues raised by the applicants, and that that had unduly obstructed their right of access to a court. It accordingly unanimously found a violation of Article 6   §   1 and awarded each applicant individually EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and all the applicants jointly EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Korfiatis v. Greece (no. 34025/06) The applicant, Dionysios Korfiatis, is a Greek national who was born in 1951 and lives in Athens.   Arrested in June 1998 for the purchase and possession of drugs, he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in July 2004. An appeal was dismissed by the Court of Cassation in January 2006. Relying, in particular, on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial in a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court noted that the proceedings at issue had lasted over seven and a half years. In view of the circumstances of the case, it found that that was too long and did not meet the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court therefore unanimously found a violation of Article   6   §   1 and awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Drahorád and Drahorádová v. the Czech Republic (no. 10254/03) The Court found a violation in this case, considering that the Czech Constitutional Court, by its particularly strict interpretation of the conditions of admissibility of a constitutional appeal, had deprived the applicants of their right of access to a court.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of administrative proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Papastefanou v. Greece (no. 39170/06)     ***   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.