CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   233 3.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 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 13 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Golovkin v. Russia (application no. 16595/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Ivanovich Golovkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Kaliningrad (Russia).   In April 1998 the applicant was charged with illegal trading, tax evasion and money laundering. The proceedings against him were ultimately discontinued in September 2005 because the relevant statutory time-limit for prosecution had expired. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted, in particular, that the proceedings had lasted over seven years. Despite the complexity of the case, it found that that was too long and had not met the “reasonable time” requirement. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles   6 §   1 and 13 of the Convention, and awarded Mr Golovkin 5,600   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ponomaryov v. Ukraine (no. 3236/03) The applicant, Viktor Vasylyovych Ponomaryov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Rogan (Ukraine).   In   a judgment of October 2001 the applicant was awarded salary arrears and compensation from his former employer, the state-owned farm, KhTZ. The judgment was not appealed against within the time-limit provided   for by domestic procedural law and became final in November 2001. In February 2004 the Ukrainian courts accepted the defendant’s request to renew the time-limit for it to lodge an ordinary appeal, on the ground that it had been in a difficult economic situation which prevented it from paying court fees. The judgment of October 2001 was subsequently quashed. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the quashing of the final and enforceable judgment in his favour as a result of the time-limit for appeal being renewed after a considerable lapse of time breached the principle of legal certainty. The applicant relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court found that the domestic courts, by allowing the defendant’s appeal merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case and not for correction of any serious judicial error or miscarriage of justice, had infringed the principle of legal certainty. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Mr Ponomaryov was awarded EUR   5,780 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Regent Company v. Ukraine (no. 773/03) The applicant is a privately owned commercial company, Regent Engineering International Limited, with its head office in Victoria (the Seychelles) and an office in London.   In February 2003 the applicant company concluded a contract with a company registered in the Czech Republic, COM s.r.o., in which the latter transferred its right to a debt it had been awarded by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine on 23 December 1998 following proceedings against a State-owned company, JSC “Oriana”. That debt amounted to approximately EUR   2,000,000. The case concerned the applicant company’s complaint about the non-enforcement by the Ukrainian authorities of that arbitration award. The   applicant company relied on Articles   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court noted at the outset that Article 6 § 1 was applicable to the proceedings in this case, which had involved enforcement of an arbitration award and the right to enforce an acquired debt. It also noted that one of the main reasons for the failure of the authorities to enforce the final arbitration award had been the insolvency of “Oriana” and that that could not be considered an excuse for failure to comply with the obligations under Article 6 § 1. Moreover, it appeared from the case file that no recent steps had been taken by the Ukrainian authorities to remedy the situation. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. It further considered that the applicant company had an enforceable claim which constituted a “possession” and therefore also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court further held unanimously that Ukraine was to pay the applicant company the outstanding amount of the arbitration award of 23   December 1998 still owed to it. As to the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court considered that the finding of a   violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 constituted sufficient just satisfaction. (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) Mourek v. the Czech Republic (no. 17999/03) The Court found the above violation in this case on account of the interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court resulting from the Czech Constitutional Court’s particularly strict interpretation of the conditions of admissibility of a constitutional appeal.   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dmitriyeva v. Russia (no. 27101/04) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the prolonged non-enforcement of a judgment in the applicant’s favour and its quashing by way of supervisory review.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ignatyeva v. Russia (no. 10277/05) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the quashing of final judgments in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ivan Novikov v. Russia (no. 12541/05) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Pogulyayev v. Russia (no. 34150/04) Tetsen v. Russia (no. 11589/04) The Court found the above violations in these three cases concerning the State’s failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all.     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) Violation of Article 13 Jeliazkov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 9143/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gavrilyak v. Ukraine (no. 31406/03) N.B. v. Ukraine (no. 17945/02)     ***   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.