CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 mai 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   367 22.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece and   Switzerland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18 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 5 §§ 3 and 4 Evgeni Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44009/02) The applicant, Evgeni Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   In March 2001 the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention as part of a criminal investigation into a jewellery theft. His applications for release were all rejected. In December 2003 he was sentenced in a final judgment to three years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting aggravated theft. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention and the lack of effective judicial control of his detention.   The Court noted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had lasted for over two years and eight months. It considered that the Bulgarian courts had continued to detain the applicant, once the initial period had expired, on the sole basis of the seriousness of the alleged offences, without examining the relevant facts as to the existence of a real risk that he would abscond or reoffend. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. In addition, the Court considered that the applicant’s applications for release had not been examined “speedily”, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. It awarded Mr Ivanov 3,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria (no. 65755/01) The applicant, Iliya Pavlov Stefanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Sofia. He is a lawyer and member of the Sofia bar.   As part of a criminal investigation into allegations of extortion, on 30 November 2000 the police carried out a search of Mr   Stefanov’s office, in the presence of two of his neighbours. They seized the applicant’s computer and all of his floppy disks. The investigation was stayed on 5 February 2001 and an order was issued to have the seized items returned to the applicant. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of that search and seizure. The applicant also alleged that his mobile telephone was tapped. He relied on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the search and seizure had been carried out as part of a criminal investigation and therefore pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of crime. It was also satisfied that the search warrant had been based on a reasonable suspicion as it had been granted following statements taken from several witnesses. However, the warrant had been drawn up in overly broad terms and had allowed the police to seize for two whole months the applicant’s entire computer as well as all his floppy disks, which contained material covered by the professional secrecy of lawyers. The Court concluded therefore that the search had infringed the applicant’s professional secrecy to an extent that had been disproportionate in the circumstances. Furthermore, it had been highly unlikely that the neighbours, who had had no legal qualifications, could have provided any effective safeguard against excessive intrusion by the police into the applicant’s professional secrecy. Given those shortcomings, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles   8. As there had been no procedure under Bulgarian law for the applicant to contest the lawfulness of the search and seizure or obtain redress, it also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13. It further held that there had been no violation of Article   13 concerning the tapping of the applicant’s mobile telephone. Mr   Stefanov was awarded EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Kirilov v. Bulgaria (no. 15158/02) The applicant, Krasimir Milanov Kirilov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968.   The cases concerned the pre-trial detention of the applicant – who was being prosecuted for theft – between January 2002 and February 2003 and between December 2005 and March 2006, although he already had several convictions for theft. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), the applicant complained that he had been unable to appear before the courts examining the appeals he had lodged between January and December 2002 against his continuing detention. In addition, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his detention at the Shumen Investigation Department (Bulgaria) between December 2005 and March 2006, alleging, among other things, that he had not received proper medical care.   The Court observed that the applicant, who had not appeared before a judicial authority ruling on his pre-trial detention either when he was first placed in detention in December 2002 or at any time until the end of his pre-trial detention in February 2003, had not been brought “promptly” before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It further considered that, since the applicant had not been given the opportunity to appear in person during the consideration of his appeals, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. The Court awarded Mr Kirilov EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   700 for costs and expenses. It declared the complaint under Article 3 inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (length) Kirov v. Bulgaria (no. 5182/02) The applicant, Nikolai George Kirov, is an American national who was born in 1948 and lives in Palm Desert (United States).   In October 1998 he was remanded in custody in Sofia and charged with drug trafficking. The investigation revealed that between May and October 1998 his telephone calls had been intercepted at the request of the Interior Ministry. The resulting recordings were destroyed after six months pursuant to a confidential internal instruction from the Minister of the Interior. In May 2003 the Bulgarian courts acquitted the applicant for lack of evidence. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about the interception of his telephone calls by the Bulgarian authorities in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. He also relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court observed that it had already ruled in a previous case ( Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria , no.   62540/00) that Bulgarian law did not afford sufficient guarantees against the risk of abuse inherent in any system of secret surveillance and did not offer an effective remedy against the use of special means of surveillance. In the applicant’s case the Court noted, in particular, the lack of a retrospective review of the surveillance measures by an independent authority, the fact that it had been impossible for the applicant to obtain information on the telephone tapping operations and the lack of a remedy. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 on account of the excessive length – four years and seven months – of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Lazarov v. Bulgaria (no. 21352/02) The applicant, Petar Ivanov Lazarov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Sofia.   In March 1989 a property (a house, a garage and an outhouse) belonging to the applicant’s late father was expropriated in order to build a school. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of time it had taken for him to be compensated for that property and that, even then, he had only been allocated part of the property to which he was entitled as compensation (two apartments and a garage). He relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the applicant had not received the compensation to which he had been entitled for more than 17 years, a period which had clearly been excessive and unjustified. Moreover, the authorities had had a passive attitude during that time, despite the applicant’s numerous complaints and their obligation to act in good time and in a consistent and appropriate manner. Given that situation of uncertainty, the Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and that no separate issue arose under Article   13. It further held unanimously Mr   Lazarov was to be returned ownership of the garage to which he was entitled, and failing that, Bulgaria was to pay him EUR   6,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court further awarded Mr   Lazarov EUR   8,000 in respect of pecuniary damage concerning the belated delivery of the apartments, EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage concerning all complaints and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 15197/02) The applicant, Ivan Iovchev Petrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Gabrovo (Bulgaria).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him for various charges, notably theft, and that, while in prison, his correspondence was monitored and, unlike married prisoners, he was not allowed to telephone his long-term partner with whom he has a child. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court considered that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, at least nine-and-a-half years, had been excessive and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. Although satisfied that the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence had been carried out with the “legitimate aim” of making sure that it did not contain material which could endanger prison security or the safety of others, the Court found that the indiscriminate monitoring of all the applicant’s correspondence could not be considered as proportionate to that aim or corresponding to a pressing social need. It therefore also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8. It further found that the Government had not given an objective or reasonable justification as to why married and unmarried partners who had an established family life should be treated differently as regards the possibility of maintaining contact by telephone while one of them was in custody. It therefore further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   14 in conjunction with Article   8. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of remedies in respect of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant but no violation in respect of the monitoring of his correspondence. Mr Petrov was awarded EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 Sadaykov v. Bulgaria (no. 75157/01) The applicant, Muslim Adnanovich Sadaykov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya (Russia).   On 8 November 1999 the applicant, just released from prison in Bulgaria, was re-arrested and detained on the basis of an order to deport him for having threatened prosecutors and judges during his trial on charges of murder and illegal possession of explosives. He was ultimately deported to Russia on 16 November 1999. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint in particular about the unlawfulness of his detention in Bulgaria pending deportation. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted, in particular, that at the relevant time detention pending deportation had only been possible under Bulgarian law, if it had been deemed necessary by the authorities. However, the order to deport the applicant had not stated that he had to be detained prior to deportation but had merely directed that he had to be deported immediately. The Court therefore found that the applicant's detention between 8 and 16 November 1999 had not had a sufficient legal basis and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f). The Court also found that it had not been shown that the applicant had had a meaningful opportunity to have the lawfulness of his detention decided speedily by a court. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. Mr Sadaykov was awarded EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Sheremetov v. Bulgaria (no. 16880/02) The applicant, Nikolai Dimitrov Sheremetov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Sofia.   In May 1992 the applicant was charged with the theft of some barrels of chemicals from the pharmaceuticals company where he was working. He was ultimately found guilty in March 2003 and given a three-month suspended sentence. 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).   The Court noted, in particular, that the proceedings had lasted over ten years. It found that period excessive and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 and awarded Mr   Sheremetov EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 Todev v. Bulgaria (no. 31036/02) The applicant, Zhivko Mihaylov Todev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1944 and lived in Plovdiv (Bulgaria) at the material time. He died in 2005.   The applicant was arrested on 13 June 2002 on suspicion of injuring a neighbour with an axe and was taken to a psychiatric establishment. The same day the establishment’s senior medical officer applied for a detention order, indicating that the applicant was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. On 14 June 2002 the public prosecutor’s office ordered the applicant’s detention for the purposes of conducting an expert examination to determine whether compulsory psychiatric treatment was needed. The order specified, among other things, that the applicant was to be released after 30 days. Mr Todev was finally released on 19 September 2002. On 10 May 2003 the court refused the application for a detention order initially made by the public prosecutor’s office. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (e) (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), the applicant complained that his detention had been unlawful and had not been the subject of effective judicial control.   The Court considered that the applicant’s arrest and placement in the psychiatric establishment in the absence of a prior medical opinion, and his subsequent continuing detention after expiry of the prosecutor’s order of 14 June 2002, without an application for extension having been made, amounted to unlawful detention. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e). The Court also noted that the applicant’s initial placement had been ordered by the district prosecutor, who did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality laid down by Article 5 § 4, that the prosecutor’s decision had not been accompanied by any procedural guarantees and, lastly, that domestic law had made no provision for judicial appeal against such placement. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant’s sister EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   900 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 10 Alithia Publishing Company Ltd & Constantinides v. Cyprus (no. 17550/03) The applicants are, Alithia Publishing Company Ltd, the publisher of the daily morning newspaper Alithia and its editor-in-chief, Alecos Costantinides, who was born in 1930 and lives in Nicosia.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the outcome of defamation proceedings brought against them following the publication in Alithia of a series of articles which alleged that a former Minister of Defence, Mr Aloneftis, was corrupt. They relied on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   The Court noted that the Cypriot courts had made a carefully balanced examination of the case against the applicants and had concluded that the applicants had not sufficiently proven their primarily factual allegations. Indeed, the domestic courts had found that the applicants had acted maliciously and had blatantly disregarded the principles of responsible journalism. The Court found those findings persuasive in the circumstances and therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   10. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gacon v. France (no. 1092/04) The applicant, Jean-Claude Gacon, is a French national who was born in 1940 and lives in Saint-Didier-au-Mont-d’Or (France).   While a manager of the Clinique du Parc company, the applicant was prosecuted for fraud. On 30 March 2001 he was acquitted by Lyons Criminal Court. Neither the applicant nor the public prosecutor appealed against the judgment within the ten days laid down by Article 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the principal public prosecutor lodged an appeal on 20 April 2001 under Article 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed the principal public prosecutor two months from the date of delivery of the criminal court judgment in which to appeal. The applicant was found guilty of fraud by Lyons Court of Appeal and was sentenced to a suspended term of two years’ imprisonment, ordered to pay a fine of EUR   120,000 and stripped of his civic, civil and family rights for five years. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings against him had been unfair on account of the longer period of time allowed to the principal public prosecutor in which to appeal against the criminal court judgment.   The Court observed that it had already ruled in a previous case that the fact that the public prosecutor’s office had a longer period in which to lodge an appeal placed the applicant at a clear disadvantage compared with the prosecution, in breach of the principle of equality of arms. Accordingly, it held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   6,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Meïdanis v. Greece (no. 33977/06) The applicant, Efthymios Meïdanis, is a Greek national who was born in 1953 and lives in Athens.   He is a doctor by profession. The case concerns a dispute between the applicant and Sismanoglio Hospital, where he had worked, over the payment of outstanding salary. The applicant was awarded the full amount claimed, plus interest at a rate which was lower than that applicable to amounts owed between individuals or amounts owed by individuals to public ‑ law entities, because the hospital in question was a public-law entity. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant complained that the amount owed to him had been reduced without any justification in the public interest.   The Court noted that the calculation of the default interest owed by the hospital, a public-law entity, at a rate almost four times below that applied to individuals over the same period, had infringed the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded the latter EUR   6,572 for pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 8 Emre v. Switzerland (no. 42034/04) The applicant, Emrah Emre, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Neuchâtel (Switzerland). He was born in Turkey and arrived in Switzerland with his parents in 1986.   In 1990 the canton of Neuchâtel issued him with a yearly residence permit, which was subsequently renewed. Between 1997 and 2005 he was convicted several times of various offences including serious road traffic offences, causing bodily harm, theft, breach of weapons legislation, damage to property, and other offences against public property. In June 2003 the Neuchâtel Canton Aliens Office ordered the applicant’s deportation for an indefinite period. The Swiss courts considered, in particular, that he was a threat to public safety. The case concerned the applicant’s complaints surrounding his deportation from Swiss territory. He alleged, among other things, that he had health problems that could not be treated adequately in Turkey, where he did not have a family or social support network. He relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The Court observed in particular that at least some of the offences committed by the applicant came under the heading of juvenile delinquency. It also noted that his health problems were liable to further complicate matters if he were to return to his country of origin, where he had few social ties. Furthermore, given the degree of seriousness of the offences of which the applicant had been convicted, his weak ties with his country of origin and the final nature of the deportation order, the Court took the view that the Swiss authorities could not be said to have struck a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and his family on the one hand and their own interest in controlling immigration on the other. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded Mr Emre EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,650 for costs and expenses. It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (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) Beloff v. France (no. 24252/04) In this case the Court unanimously found the above violation on account of the fact that the applicant had not been provided with a copy of the reporting judge’s report or informed of the tenor of the advocate-general’s submissions prior to the hearing before the Court of Cassation.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness Rémy Garnier v. France (no. 38984/04) The Court unanimously found the above violation in this case on account of the fact that the applicant had not been provided with a copy of the reporting judge’s report in proceedings before the Court of Cassation.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Merdzhanov v. Bulgaria (no. 69316/01) Tsilira v. Greece (no. 44035/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Givezov v. Bulgaria (application no. 15154/02)     ***   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.