CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 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 } .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   259 10.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Russia, Switzerland, and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13   Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Abrahamian v. Austria (application no. 35354/04) The applicant, Heidemarie Abrahamian, is an Austrian national who lives in Vienna. She is a doctor.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that no public hearing was held in administrative proceedings with regard to compulsory payment of pension and invalidity contributions to the Vienna Medical Association. She relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that the practice of the Austrian Administrative Court was not to hear the parties unless one of them asked to be heard. The Court noted that the applicant had expressly requested an oral hearing with the Administrative Court, which had refused the request without giving explicit reasons. Furthermore, there appeared to have been no exceptional circumstances to justify dispensing with a hearing. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. Ms Abrahamian was awarded 3,000   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mihalkov v. Bulgaria (no. 67719/01) The applicant, Mihail Vladov Mihalkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Sofia.   In 1985 the applicant was convicted of several economic offences and sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment. He spent 11 months in prison. Following a retrial, the judgments convicting him were overturned. The case before the Court concerned proceedings brought by the applicant under the 1988 State Liability Act before the courts which had convicted him, seeking compensation for the damage sustained through his conviction and imprisonment. Relying in particular on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that the courts which ruled on his action had not been impartial, that the compensation awarded was reduced on account of the court taxes imposed, and about the excessive length of the proceedings.   The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 in that the courts in question, which had been required to examine an action brought against them in an attempt to establish their liability in tort, did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality. It further considered that the application of the rules on court taxes in proceedings brought under the State Liability Act had had the effect of reducing the compensation awarded to the applicant and, apparently, of dissuading him from requesting enforcement. The Court considered that there had been an unjustified interference in his right to a court and concluded that there had therefore been a further violation of Article   6 §   1. Finally, it held that the length of the disputed proceedings – six years and eight months – had been excessive, in violation of Article   6 §   1. The Court awarded Mr   Mihalkov EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Bochet v. France (no. 18130/05) The applicant, Jean Bochet, is a French national who was born in 1922 and lives in Reims (France).   The case concerned a dispute between the tax authorities and the applicant. The latter complained that the proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat had been unfair on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in that court’s deliberations. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court pointed out that it had already held in a previous case that the presence of the Government Commissioner at the Conseil d’Etat’s deliberations was contrary to the requirements of Article   6 §   1 and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of that Article. It held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the damage suffered by Mr   Bochet and awarded him EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Wasserman v. Russia (No. 2) (no. 21071/05) The applicant, Kim Yefimovich Wasserman, is a Russian and Israeli national who was born in 1926 and lives in Ashdod (Israel).   The applicant brought a previous application before the Court, Wasserman v. Russia (no.   15021/02), concerning non-enforcement of a judgment debt in his favour. In its Chamber judgment of 18   November 2004 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The present case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the continued non-enforcement of the same judgment debt in his favour. He also complained about the absence of an effective domestic remedy for that complaint. He relied on Articles   6 §   1, Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Russian Government claimed that the Court was not competent to examine the applicant’s present case under Article   46 §   2 (execution of judgments) because the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe had not yet completed the execution of the Court’s Chamber judgment of 18   November 2004. The Court acknowledged that it had no jurisdiction to review the measures adopted by the Russian authorities but that it could, nevertheless, take stock of subsequent factual developments. It observed that, in the present case, the applicant’s complaints had concerned a further period during which the judgment in his favour had also remained unenforced. The Court therefore considered that it did in fact have the competence to examine those complaints. It further noted that it had frequently found violations of Article   6 §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 in cases raising similar issues. As the Russian Government had not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the applicant’s case, it therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   As concerned Mr   Wasserman’s complaint about the absence of an effective domestic remedy, the Court noted that Russian law did not determine the procedure for complaints concerning excessive length of enforcement proceedings. It observed that, in the applicant's case, the proceedings had exceeded two-and-a-half years, which did not meet the requirement of speediness necessary for a remedy to be “effective”. Moreover, the Court found that the Russian courts’ award to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage (less than EUR   250) had been manifestly unreasonable in the light of the Court’s own case-law in similar cases. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13.   Mr Wasserman was awarded EUR   373 for pecuniary damage, EUR   4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 Meloni v. Switzerland (no. 61697/00) The applicant, Raffaele Meloni, is a Swiss national who was born in 1964 and lives in Solonas di Cabras (the Dominican Republic).   The applicant, who was suspected of fraud and forging documents, was placed in pre-trial detention from April 1999 to September 2000. He was subsequently sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and was arrested with a view to serving the remainder of his sentence in February 2005. Relying on Article   5 §   1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant alleged that his pre-trial detention had been unlawful, in that it had been extended without a legal basis.   The Court noted that the applicant’s initial detention had been based on a valid arrest warrant, which was then validly extended until 8   May 2000. It considered, however, that the applicant’s detention from 9   to 12   May 2000 and from 12   May to 19   July 2000 had not been decided “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1. It awarded Mr   Meloni EUR   5,000   in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Luchkina v. Russia (no. 3548/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Nekhoroshev v. Russia (no. 45017/04) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicants by way of supervisory review.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gorokhov v. Russia (no. 40136/02) Shevchenko v. Russia (no. 42383/02) Kolesnik v. Ukraine (no. 20824/02) Maydanik v. Ukraine (no. 20826/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Martynchuk v. Ukraine (no. 38988/02) The Court found the above violations in these five cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or not at all. In the cases of Kolesnik and Maydanik the Court held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Avdelidis and Others v. Greece (no. 15938/06)     ***   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.