CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   217 27.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Russia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 25   Chamber judgments, none of which 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Delespesse v. Belgium (application no. 12949/05) The applicant, Dominique Delespesse, is a Belgian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Liège (Belgium).   Charged with having taken part in an armed robbery in March 1999, in which the victim died, the applicant and an accomplice were sent before the Assize Court. During the preliminary investigation the applicant confessed to killing the victim, but in the proceedings before the Assize Court he denied any part in the murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and §   2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that the proceedings had been unfair because the questions concerning aggravating circumstances had not been put to the Assize Court jury separately in respect of each accused.   The European Court of Human Rights pointed out that it had already found, in a previous case, that failure to separate questions concerning aggravating circumstances prevented the applicant from exercising his or her rights of defence with regard to a specific point in a practical, effective manner. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1, and that no separate question was raised under Article 6   §   2. By six votes to one it awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kostadin Mihaylov v. Bulgaria (no. 17868/07) The applicant, Kostadin Georgiev Mihaylov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1922 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   In 2001 the applicant went blind after contracting glaucoma. The case concerned his complaint about the unfairness of two sets of proceedings with regard to his request for a disability pension and attendance allowance. His two actions were, respectively, dismissed and declared inadmissible on the ground that he had not directed his claim against the proper defendant. In the first set of proceedings the local courts ruled that the proper defendant was the Regional Department of Social Security in Plovdiv, and, in the second set, that it was the National Social Security Institute. The applicant relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court considered that the local courts had taken conflicting positions in the two sets of proceedings, which had resulted in the merits of the applicant’s claim not having been determined by a court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1. It also held unanimously that there was no need to examine the complaints under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and Article   13. Mr   Mihaylov was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Lb Interfinanz A.G. v. Croatia (no. 29549/04) The applicant, Lb Interfinanz A.G., is a Swiss company based in Zurich (Switzerland).   The applicant company was a creditor of the Županjska Bank, against which bankruptcy proceedings were brought in May 1999. All creditors were invited to lodge their claims against the bank. In February 2001 the applicant company contested a claim filed by one of the creditors, the State Agency for the Insurance of Savings Deposits, arguing that that claim had not been subject to proper examination during a hearing held in September 1999. The applicant company’s action was ultimately dismissed in 2004. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complained that the principle of adversarial proceedings had been violated in that it had been unable to contest the Agency’s claim.   In view of the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that it could not be said that the applicant company had not had the opportunity to challenge the claim submitted by the Agency. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Perić v. Croatia (no. 34499/06) The applicant, Ilonka Perić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1919 and lives in Opatija (Croatia).   In 1993 the applicant drew up a contract with two carers to look after her in return for her property when she died. In October 2002 she brought civil proceedings in which she sought to terminate that contract. Her action was ultimately dismissed by the local courts. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms Perić complained about the unfairness of the proceedings.   The Court noted, in particular, that in those proceedings the trial court had refused to hear evidence from any of the witnesses called on behalf of the applicant for reasons which contradicted the court’s agreement to hear evidence from witnesses called on behalf of the defendants. The Court therefore found that the applicant had not had a fair trial and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. Ms Perić was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Kouroupis v. Greece (no. 36432/05) The applicant, Georgios Kouroupis, is a Greek national who was born in 1952 and lives in Piraeus (Greece).   A professional photographer, he was arrested in July 1999 on suspicion of espionage. After several adjournments of the proceedings, the applicant was ultimately acquitted in March 2005. Relying on Articles 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained of the excessive length of the proceedings against him.   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted five years and eight months. It considered that excessive and held unanimously that there had been violations of Articles 6   §   1 and 13. It awarded Mr Kouroupis EUR   7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Terzoglou v. Greece (no. 15280/06) The applicant, Aggelos Terzoglou, is a Greek national.   The case concerns proceedings brought against the applicant in April 1999, for incitement to drug trafficking in the prison where he was being held on other charges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in January 2004 and an appeal he lodged was dismissed in October 2005. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court noted that the proceedings had spanned more than six years and seven months, a duration it considered excessive. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 8 Guidi v. Italy (no. 28320/02) The applicant, Vincenzo Guidi, is an Italian national who was born in 1966. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and other crimes linked to the activities of a mafia-type organisation, and is currently serving his sentence in the Ascoli Piceno prison in Italy.   He complained in particular of the special prison regime to which he was subjected, which entailed, among other things, restrictions on visits by family members, and surveillance of his correspondence. He also complained that he was subjected to repeated body searches and that his cell was constantly monitored by closed-circuit cameras. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court considered that the limitations and restrictions resulting from the application of the special regime had not been overly harsh, and unanimously held that there had been no violation of Article 3. It also pointed out that it had already found that the relevant domestic legal provision did not provide sufficient legal basis for verifying the applicant’s correspondence, in violation of Article 8. On the matter of non-pecuniary damage, the Court held that the finding of a violation was in itself sufficient just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Just satisfaction Struck out Perrella v. Italy (No. 2) (no. 15348/03) The applicant, Vincenzo Perrella, is an Italian national.   In a judgment of 2 November 2006 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and held that the matter of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   The Court took note of the statements by the Government and the applicant in which they agreed that the applicant would receive EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. It accordingly decided to strike the remainder of the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 11 Roşca, Secăreanu and Others v. Moldova (nos. 25230/02, 25203/02, 27642/02, 25234/02 and 25235/02). The applicants, Iurie Roşca, Ştefan Secăreanu, Petru Buburuz, Anatol Roşcovan and Anatol Eremia, are Moldovan nationals who live in Chişinău. They are members and/or sympathisers of the Christian Democratic People’s Party (CDPP), an opposing political party in the Republic of Moldova at the time of the events.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about administrative fines imposed on them for organising and/or participating in demonstrations to protest against the introduction of compulsory Russian language classes in Moldovan schools. The applicants relied on Articles   10 (freedom of expression) and   11 (freedom of assembly and association).   The Court reiterated that only very serious breaches such as those which endangered political pluralism or fundamental democratic principles could justify a ban on the activities of a political party. The CDPP’s gatherings had been entirely peaceful and there had been no calls to violent overthrow of the Government or any other encroachment on the principles of pluralism and democracy. It could not therefore reasonably be said that the measure applied to the CDPP had been proportionate to the aim pursued or that it had met a pressing social need. As it had already found in a similar case ( Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova , application no. 28793/02), the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 and did not consider it necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaint under Article 10. The Court awarded EUR 28 to Mr   Roşca and to Mr Secăreanu and EUR   6 to each of the rest of the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR   2,000 to each applicant except Mr   Roşca and Mr Secăreanu in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded a total of EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Korobov and Others v. Russia (no. 67086/01) Sukhovoy v. Russia (no. 63955/00) The applicants, Anatoliy Yuryevich Korobov, Oleg Yuryevich Savelyev, Dmitriy Vladimirovich Tsyplov and Kirill Yuryevich Sukhovoy, are Russian nationals who live in Ivanovo (Russia). The first three applicants were born in 1979 and the fourth in 1982.   All the applicants were found guilty of robbery and given prison sentences in 2000. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complained about the conditions of their detention in remand facility IZ-37/1 in the case of Korobov and Others and in remand facility IZ-33/1 in the case of   Sukhovoy .   The Court observed that, in both cases, the main allegation, which the parties had agreed upon, was that the cells had been overpopulated. It reiterated that, in previous cases, it had frequently found that the fact that an applicant had been obliged to live, sleep, and use the toilet in the same cell with many other inmates had in itself been sufficient to cause distress and hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. In the case of Korobov and Others it also found that the applicants’ situation had been aggravated by the fact that the cell windows had been covered with metal shutters which had blocked access to fresh air and natural light. In the case of Sukhovoy , the Court further noted that the applicant, only 18 years old at the time, had been detained for about seven months. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 in both cases. Mr   Sukhovoy was awarded EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. As the applicants in the case of Korobov and Others had not submitted their claims for just satisfaction within the required time-limit, the Court made no such award. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Hacı Zeki Uzun v. Turkey (no. 11564/02) The applicant, Hacı Zeki Uzun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in İzmir (Turkey).   In October 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Criminal proceedings were brought against him but he was ultimately acquitted in May 2000. Relying, in particular, on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained about the length of his detention in police custody.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of the applicant’s detention having lasted almost six days without judicial intervention. The applicant was awarded EUR   1,000 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 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Vacarencu v. Moldova (no. 10543/02) Korotkikh v. Russia (no. 4543/02) Mayamsin v. Russia (no. 3344/04) Shirykalova v. Russia (no. 26307/02) Tikhov and Others v. Russia (no. 14296/03) Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Murtazin v. Russia (no. 26338/06) The Court found the above violations in these six cases concerning the failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all. In the case of Murtazin , it found a further violation of each Article concerning the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant by way of supervisory review. The Court held unanimously that there was no need to examine the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in the cases of Korotkikh and Shirykalova .   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 McNamee v. the United Kingdom (no. 61949/00) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the applicant’s complaint that, as a widower, he had been refused Widow’s Payment. The Court also held that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Dim. Kai Aik. Tzivani O.E. v. Greece (no. 4799/06) Markou v. Greece (no. 34035/06) Seremetis v. Greece Bergmann v. Hungary (no. 14276/04) Csabainé Győri v. Hungary (no. 14996/05) Gögös v. Hungary (nos. 20014/04 and 25348/04 (joined))     ***   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.