CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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   296 24.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar     Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Romania,   Russia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 29 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 6 § 1 (length) Heremans v. Belgium (application no. 28171/04) The applicant, Joseph Heremans, is a Belgian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Incourt (Belgium).   He was suspected of tipping 17,000 tonnes of highly contaminated earth onto the site of a sand quarry that he was running in the 1980s in the Walloon municipality of Mellery. From 1987 onwards he was charged with various offences, in particular the unauthorised disposal of toxic waste. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him, which were still pending.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the proceedings in question had lasted 21 years and three months. It considered that such a period was excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded 30,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Heremans in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Just satisfaction Todorova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01) The applicants are four Bulgarian nationals. The case concerned nationalised property the applicants had acquired and the subsequent actions brought against them under section   7 of the Restitution Law by the pre-nationalisation owners or their heirs, resulting in the applicants’ being ordered to vacate their property.   In its Chamber judgment of 15   March 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that the question of Article   41 (just satisfaction) as regards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was not ready for decision.   In its judgment today, the Court held unanimously that Bulgaria is to pay: Lubomira Nedkova Todorova EUR   80,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR   3000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   128 for costs and expenses; Anka Ivanova Eneva and Dobromir Enchev Dobrev EUR   50,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   6,000 for non-pecuniary damage; Stoico and Maria Bogdanovi EUR   47,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage; and, Regina and Konstantin Tzilevi EUR   41,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   210 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Dorozhko and Pozharskiy v. Estonia (nos. 14659/04 and 16855/04) The applicants are Aleksandr Dorozhko, a stateless person born in 1960, and Vyacheslav Pozharskiy, an Estonian national born in 1981. They are both currently serving prison sentences for robbery.   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that, in criminal proceedings against the applicants, the trial judge had not been impartial as her husband, I. P., had been involved in the pre-trial investigation. They relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial). The Court reiterated that, under the objective test of impartiality under Article   6 §   1, appearances were of importance. It noted, in particular, that it had appeared probable that the trial judge had been aware of the fact that her husband had been the head of the team of investigators. That team had been set up specifically for the investigation of the criminal case against the applicant, and I. P.’s connection with that case had to have been considerably closer than, for example, that of the head of a police institution with formal responsibility for all criminal matters dealt with at any given time. Moreover, Mr Dorozhko could be understood for having considered I. P. to be personally responsible for the investigation against him. The Court concluded that, from an objective standpoint, there had been justifiable doubts as to the impartiality of the trial judge. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and awarded Mr   Pozharskiy EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. As Mr   Dorozhko had made no claims for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, the Court made no such award. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Friendly settlement Castelot v. France (no. 12332/03) The applicant, Claude Castelot, is a French national who was born in 1935 and lives in Torcy-le-Petit (France).   In September 1998 he was arrested for being drunk and disorderly in a bar and placed in a sobering-up cell. After leaving the police station a few hours later, the applicant went to have his alcohol level tested at a hospital and the results were negative. He filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary detention against one of the two police officers who had arrested him. The police officer was ultimately acquitted. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant alleged that no effective investigation had been carried out to establish whether or not his detention in the cell was lawful.   The Court took note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties, under which the applicant was to receive the sum of EUR 3,500. It decided to strike out the application. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Violation of Article 13 Milionis and Others v. Greece (no. 41898/04) The 44 applicants are Greek nationals who are retired servicemen or their heirs.   The case concerned an application lodged by the ex-servicemen in 1989 to obtain a decision that the Greek Air Force’s mutual pension fund was obliged to grant them additional pension payments plus interest. The applicants complained about the authorities’ decision to suspend the reimbursement of interest on the sums fixed by a judgment in their favour of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal in 2003. They also alleged that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court reiterated that the authorities had a duty, in a state governed by the rule of law, to ensure in a fair manner the execution of domestic court judgments and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the applicants’ right of access to a court. It further considered that the length of the proceedings – 14 years and seven months – had been excessive and thus held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13. The Court ruled that the State was to pay each applicant, in respect of pecuniary damage, simple interest of 6% per annum on the sums awarded in the 2003 judgment, for the period from 20 June 1989 until the date of delivery of the present judgment, together with EUR 14,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 Rizzotto v. Italy (no. 15349/06) The applicant, Salvatore Stefano Rizzotto, is an Italian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Syracuse (Italy).   Charged with criminal association and drug trafficking, the applicant was remanded in custody in June 2004. He lodged an application for release on the ground that his custody was not justified by any special requirements. In October 2005 the applicant was placed under house arrest instead. Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), he alleged that the Italian courts had failed to decide “speedily” on the lawfulness of his detention.   The Court considered that the delays complained of by the applicant had been excessive and the unquestionable complexity of the case could not explain the length of the proceedings as a whole. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, together with EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kemp and Others v. Luxembourg (no. 17140/05) The applicants, Paul Kemp and three sisters, Gabrielle Binsfeld, Edith Binsfeld and Paule Binsfeld, are Luxembourg nationals who were born in 1931, 1937, 1941 and 1949, respectively, and live in Schifflange and Bridel (Luxembourg).   The case concerned the State’s acquisition in 1970 of land that had belonged to the sisters’ parents for the purposes of building a new motorway. Its route ultimately diverged from the original plan but the applicants’ request to recover the land was denied. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained about the excessive formalism shown by the Court of Cassation in declaring inadmissible their appeal on points of law and the resulting breach of their right to have access to a court. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they also complained about a breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The Court considered that the restriction imposed by the Court of Cassation on the applicants’ right of access to a court had not been proportionate to the aim of guaranteeing legal certainty and the smooth administration of justice, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. However, the Court considered that, as regards their request for recovery of the land, the applicants did not have a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and it thus held unanimously that there had been no violation of that article. The Court awarded the applicants EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 12,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Rosengren v. Romania (no. 70786/01) The applicant, Julian Rosengren, is a Romanian and Swedish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Visby (Sweden).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him for fraud and a prohibition on his leaving Bucharest. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement).   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted 16 months before Romania’s recognition of the right of individual petition and, after that, a further eight years. It found that period excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1. The Court further observed that the prohibition on leaving Bucharest had lasted six years and three months and that that measure had been taken and extended without relevant reasons, although the applicant had repeatedly challenged it. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4. Mr Rosengren was awarded EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Visan v. Romania (no. 15741/03) The applicant, Constanta Visan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest.   In June 1993 she was convicted of fraud and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. She was released in July 1994 and, ultimately, pardoned in October 1995. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that her claim for compensation for wrongful conviction had been rejected, in particular under Article 504 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings (“CCP”), as time-barred. She relied, in particular, on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court).     The Court noted, in particular, that Ms Visan had lodged her claim for compensation when Article 504 of the CCP, with regard to compensation for wrongful conviction, had not covered her situation. It found that, by examining the applicant's claim under a legal provision that had not been known to be applicable at the relevant time, the Romanian courts had infringed the applicant’s right of access to a court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Ms Visan EUR   5,000 for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 Fursenko v. Russia (no. 26386/02) The applicant, Petr Vsevolodovich Fursenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lived in Tver (Russia). He died in 2005 and his mother continued the proceedings before the European Court in his place.   In April 2001 Mr Fursenko was arrested and taken into police custody on charges of drug-trafficking. The local courts extended the applicant’s detention several times despite his requests for release. He was, ultimately, released in February 2003. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length and unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention and that he was unable to challenge the unlawfulness of his continuing detention. He relied on Article   5 §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1 on account of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from: 14   to 23   May 2001; 23   May to 18   June 2001; 24   September 2001 to 26   February 2002; 26   March to 25   June 2002; 6   to 8   August 2002; and, 8   August 2002 to 30   January 2003. It also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 §   1 concerning the pre-trial detention from: 14   April to 14   May 2001; 18   June to 24   September 2001; 26   February to 26   March 2002; 25   June to 6   August 2002; and, 30   January to 14   February 2003.   The Court also considered that the total duration - one year and ten months - of the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been excessive. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3.   The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 4 concerning the failure to examine “speedily” Mr Fursenko’s complaint of 28   February 2002 and his appeal against a decision of 12   July 2002. It also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 4 concerning the alleged failure to examine the applicant’s complaints lodged between 13   July and 21   November 2001.   The applicant’s mother was awarded EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.) Violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 6 § 1 Silin v. Russia (no. 3947/03) The applicant, Vladimir Igorevich Silin, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Moscow.   In August 2000 the applicant was detained on charges of, in particular, attempted kidnapping as part of an organised group. He was convicted in June 2003 and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of the applicant’s detention having lasted almost two years and ten months. However, the Court did not find that the length of the proceedings against the applicant - two years and ten months - had been excessive, given the complexity of the case. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6 §   1. The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Silin and awarded him EUR   1,225 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 Nesevski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 14438/03) The applicant, Zoran Nesevski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Skopje.   In January 1997 the applicant applied for a post as a teacher in a school in Skopje. He was not recruited. Relying on Articles   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the non-enforcement of a Supreme Court judgment on 28 February 2001 in his favour which ordered, in particular, the school to recruit another person from the list of candidates as Ms V.M., the person who had been recruited, did not meet the requirements for the post as advertised in the vacancy notice. Following that judgment the school made a new selection, which resulted in Ms V.M. being reappointed to the vacant post.   The Court noted, in particular, that the school had reappointed the candidate whom the Supreme Court had already declared unfit for the vacant post. It concluded that the Supreme Court judgment remained unenforced and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 taken in conjunction with Article   6 and awarded Mr Nesevski EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Sulejmanov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 69875/01) The applicant, Demir Sulejmanov, is a Macedonian national of Roma ethnic origin who was born in 1971. He died in 2001 and his two sisters continued the proceedings before the European Court in his place.   Suspected of stealing sheep in March 1998, Mr Sulejmanov alleged that he had been ill-treated by the police. The applicant lodged an unsuccessful civil claim for compensation in October 1998. In November 1998 he lodged a criminal complaint. The public prosecutor responded in November 1999 that his office had acted with regard to the complaint by officially requesting additional inquiries from the Ministry of the Interior. On 13 February 2006 the public prosecutor also issued a “written conclusion” which stated, in particular, that the police had not had recourse to any physical force when arresting the applicant. The public prosecutor also stated that there were no grounds for his intervention in the case. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that there had been no effective official investigation into his complaint.   The Court noted, in particular, that the applicant and the Macedonian Government had provided conflicting accounts of the events. It found that there was insufficient evidence for it to conclude that the applicant had been subjected to physical ill-treatment while having been arrested or while in police custody. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   3 on account of the alleged ill-treatment.   The Court further noted that Mr Sulejmanov’s criminal complaint to the public prosecutor and his civil claim for compensation had amounted to a credible assertion that the alleged injuries could have been caused by the police as alleged. However, the public prosecutor had not taken any investigative measures after receiving the complaint, apart from requesting additional inquiries from the Ministry. Moreover, the Court noted that the “written conclusion” about the incident had been given nearly eight years after the criminal complaint had been lodged, that that conclusion had been based mainly on evidence provided by the police and that it had taken eight months for the public prosecutor to communicate its reply to the applicant. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations. It further held unanimously that it was not necessary to consider the applicant’s complaint under Article   13. Mr   Sulejmanov’s sisters were awarded EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kahraman Yılmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 51423/99) The applicants, Kahraman Yılmaz, Bilal Arıkan, Birol Ayten, Ali Dilli and Ahmet Cihan, are Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1955, 1956, 1959, 1956 and 1954 and live in Istanbul.   They were arrested and remanded in custody in the early 1980s on suspicion of being members of the TKP/ML-TIKKO (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist, Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army). After being acquitted in 1999, the applicants separately filed compensation claims in respect of their detention and obtained awards on that basis. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them. The applicant Ahmet Cihan also complained, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), about the excessive length of the compensation proceedings and the delay in the payment of the compensation.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicants. It further found that there had also been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the compensation proceedings brought by Mr Cihan, but that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as the applicant had not incurred any actual loss because of the time taken by the authorities to pay the sum awarded. The Court awarded the applicants the total sum of EUR 44,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 jointly to the applicants for costs and expenses (The judgment is available only in French.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Chervonets v. Ukraine (no. 39405/03) The applicant, Valeriy Pavlovich Chervonets, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine).   On 23 October 2002 Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv ordered the applicant’s pension to be recalculated. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the non-enforcement of that judgment. He also complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him in December 2002 for threatening a judge of the district court. The applicant was obliged not to leave his place of his permanent residence. Those proceedings are still pending. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   As regards the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 23   October 2002, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, reiterating that it had already found a violation of those articles in a number of similar cases. The Court further found that there had been a violation Article   6 §   1 concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. It also held unanimously that there was no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 and that Ukraine was to enforce the judgment of 23   October 2002. Mr Chervonets was awarded EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 Zhoglo v. Ukraine (no. 17988/02) The applicant, Ruslan Nikolayevich Zhoglo, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Kyiv.   In December 2001 the applicant was convicted of attempted murder and robbery and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint, in particular, that at no stage during the criminal proceedings against him was he given the opportunity to confront and question the victim. He relied on Article   6 §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial).   The Court observed, in particular, that Mr Zhoglo's conviction for attempted murder had been based to a decisive extent, if not solely, on a version of events provided by the victim. It considered that the applicant had not been given an opportunity to contest the statements on which his conviction had been based and that he had been denied a fair trial. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §§   1 and   3. It also held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (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 Ivanova v. Russia (no. 11697/05) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant by way of supervisory review.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Klishina and Others v. Russia (no. 36074/04) Borisov and Others v. Ukraine (no. 34091/03) Sudyin v. Ukraine (no. 5082/05) Tverdokhleb v. Ukraine (no. 38888/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Shturkhalev v. Ukraine (no. 10947/04) 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. The Court held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) in the case of Shturkhalev .     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) Mathy v. Belgium (no. 12066/06) Anastasiadis and Others v. Greece (no. 25844/04) Anastasopoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 25833/04) Avoutzis and Others v. Greece (no. 25852/04) Avramidis and Others v. Greece (no. 26084/04) Galiatsou-Koutsikou and Others v. Greece (no. 38720/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Association “E. Apostolopoulos and K. Lymperopoulos” v. Greece (no. 24133/05)     ***   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.