CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 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 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   208 25.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Romania and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Two repetitive cases [2]   can be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gaga v. Romania (application no. 1562/02) The applicant, Gheorghe Gaga, is a Romanian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Fizeş (Romania).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaints about criminal proceedings which resulted in his being sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment for murder. The applicant complained that he had been convicted in absentia , without having had the opportunity to defend himself, on account of an error in service of the summons to appear in court. He relied in particular on Article   6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention of Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that it had not been shown that the applicant had tried to abscond or that he had unequivocally waived the right to appear at his trial. It also noted that he had not been given the opportunity to obtain from a court a fresh determination of the charges against him. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6. It awarded Mr   Gaga 5,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses, less the EUR   850 received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 Violation of Article 6 § 2 Violation of Article 8 Vitan v. Romania (no. 42084/02) The applicant, Floricel Vitan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Cluj Napoca (Romania). He was remanded in custody in December 2000 on suspicion of trading in influence while exercising the functions of information officer at the Independent Service for Protection and Anticorruption ( Serviciul Independent de Protectie si Anticoruptie ), and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in November 2001. At a press conference on 19   December 2000 the prosecutor in charge of the criminal investigation stated that he was guilty. The applicant complained of the poor conditions of his detention, a violation of the secrecy of his correspondence in prison and a breach of the rights of the defence and of the presumption of innocence. He relied on Articles   6 (right to a fair trial) and   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that the applicant had not been prevented from freely exercising his defence rights and that there had been no violation of Article   6 §§   1 and   3. However, it considered that the prosecutor’s statement could be regarded as an official declaration that the applicant was guilty despite the fact that that had not yet been legally established, in breach of Article   6 §   2. Regarding the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, the Court found that that had not been “in accordance with the law” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8. It awarded Mr   Vitan EUR   2,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Falimonov v. Russia (no. 11549/02) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gayvoronskiy v. Russia (no. 13519/02) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time. The Court found a further violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the excessive length of a set of civil proceedings concerning a road accident in the case of Falimonov .   ***   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.