CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 avril 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   227 1.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Serbia and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length) Gigli Costruzioni S.R.L. v. Italy (application no. 10557/03) The applicant, Gigli Costruzioni S.R.L., is a company with its registered office in Jesi (Italy).   It was the owner of a plot of building land in Morro d’Abba (Italy) of which the authorities took physical possession in 1981 and which was expropriated in 1983. A claim for compensation lodged by the applicant company resulted in the payment of a sum smaller than the market value of the land, calculated on the basis of a law enacted in 1992. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complained that the amount it had been paid in compensation for the expropriation was insufficient. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), it also complained that the enactment and application to the proceedings of a new law amounted to legislative interference incompatible with its right to a fair hearing. It further complained of the excessive length of the proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the compensation the applicant company had received was insufficient, which had placed a disproportionate and excessive burden on the company which could not be justified by any legitimate public interest. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It also held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 6   §   1: the proceedings had been unfair, as there had been no evidently compelling public interest to justify the retroactive application of the law, and their duration had been excessive as they had lasted more than 15 years and six months. The Court awarded the applicant company 500,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   9,676 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Bereza v. Poland (no. 38713/06) The applicant, Marcin Bereza, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Warsaw.   In December 2003, the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of murder, extortion, robbery and drug trafficking. He has just recently been released. The proceedings against him are still pending. Relying, in particular, on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, the applicant complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand.   The Court found that, even though the Polish courts’ task had not been an easy one, given that the applicant’s case had been a complex one involving an organised criminal group, that did not justify having detained the applicant for four years and three months. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 and awarded him EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 8 (first two applicants) Varga v. Romania (no. 73957/01) The applicants, Anna, Gruia and Flaviu Varga, are Romanian nationals who were born, respectively, in 1942, 1937 and 1982 and live in Cluj-Napoca (Romania).   On 19 December 2000 they were remanded in custody for insulting a public prosecutor and police officers following a search carried out at the home of the first two applicants. They were released on 6 June 2001 and sentenced in January 2004 to a one-year suspended prison sentence for insulting behaviour. Relying on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complained that their detention had been unlawful and that the search had violated their right to respect for their home.   The Court found that there had been no legal basis for keeping the applicants in detention from 18 January to 1 February 2001 and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5   §   1. It also observed that the search, which had been conducted without a warrant and without impartial observers, had not respected the minimum guarantees the law imposed on the authorities in charge of the criminal investigation, and had not been subject to judicial scrutiny. Noting that the legislation governing searches in the home at the material time had been lax and deficient, particularly concerning the broad powers assigned to the prosecuting authorities, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 in respect of the first two applicants. It awarded the first two applicants EUR   3,000 each and the third applicant EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Bulović v. Serbia (no. 14145/04) The applicant, Radmila Bulović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Subotica (Serbia).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the Serbian authorities’ failure to enforce in good time a judgment of March 1994 which ordered her former husband to pay her a maintenance allowance. She relied on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court).   The Court noted that the enforcement proceedings had been pending for approximately seven years and six months before Serbia’s ratification of the European Convention on 3 March 2004 and, after that, had lasted a further three years and two months. Indeed, the proceedings had only ended because the applicant had withdrawn her enforcement request. The Court therefore found that the enforcement proceedings had not been effective and had impaired the applicant’s right of access to a court, in violation of Article   6 §   1. As the applicant had not submitted a claim for just satisfaction within the required time-limit, the Court made no such award. (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) Nemeti v. Romania (no. 37278/03) In this case the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1 as a result of the annulment by the domestic courts of an appeal lodged by the applicant because she had not paid stamp duty. It also held that it was not necessary to examine the merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Taculescu and Others v. Romania (no. 16947/03) In this case the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of the above provisions because of the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement by the Romanian authorities of final judgments in the applicants’ favour.   Three violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Valentin Dumitrescu v. Romania (no. 36820/02) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning proceedings to recover a piece of land.   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bond v. the United Kingdom (no. 63479/00) Cummins v. the United Kingdom (no. 14549/02) Nelson v. the United Kingdom (no. 74961/01)   Friendly settlement Robertson v. the United Kingdom (no. 12828/02) The above four cases concerned the applicants’ complaints under Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) that, because they were men, they had been denied widows’ benefits. In the first three cases, the Court found violations of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1   of Protocol No.   1   in relation to Widowed Mother's Allowance or Widow's Payment and further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article   14 in conjunction with Article   8. In the case of Robertson, the Court took note of a friendly settlement reached between the parties in which the applicant was awarded 9,236.04   pounds   sterling   (GBP) (EUR   12,073) and decided to strike the remainder of the application out of the list.     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) Shinckus v. Belgium (no. 29198/05) Szilvássy v. Hungary (no. 17623/04) Stukus and Others v. Poland (no. 12534/03) Dekany v. Romania (no. 22011/03)     ***   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.