CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 juillet 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 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   565 31.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Luxembourg, Norway and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 22   Chamber judgments, none of which are 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) Violation of Article 13 Schneider v. Austria (application no. 25166/05) The applicant, Jürgen Schneider, is a German national who was born in 1944 and lives in Stephanskirchen (Germany).   The case concerned Mr Schneider’s complaint about the excessive length of administrative criminal proceedings against him for driving offences. 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 held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention on account of the proceedings having lasted four years and eight months. It further held that there had been a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy concerning the length-of-proceedings complaint. Mr   Schneider was awarded 1,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic (no. 72034/01) The applicants are Družstevní Záložna Pria, a credit union registered in Brno (the Czech Republic), and eight Czech nationals, members of the credit union and of its management and supervisory organs. 633 other members of the credit union have also joined the proceedings before the Court.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the credit union being placed in receivership in January 2000 and the ensuing effect on shares and deposits. They also complained that the decisions concerning the receivership could not be contested before independent and impartial authorities with full jurisdiction to examine the case. They relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the applicant credit union, once placed in receivership, had been denied access to its business and accountancy documents and had subsequently been unable to challenge that denial before a court. The Government had given no reasons to justify that denial. The Court therefore concluded that the interference with the applicant credit union’s possessions had not been sufficiently guaranteed against arbitrariness and had not been lawful and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Given that finding and the fact that the individual applicants’ complaints had been essentially the same as those of the applicant credit union, the Court decided to declare inadmissible that part of the complaint.   The Court further noted that the decisions to place the applicant credit union in receivership had been made by an authority which had been answerable to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance having dealt with the applicant credit union’s appeals against the receivership could not therefore be considered independent. Furthermore, in the ensuing judicial review proceedings, the High Court had been prevented from assessing whether there had been any factual basis for receivership and had limited its review to the question of whether the decisions had been within the authority’s discretionary power instead of whether they had been lawful. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. Lastly, it held that it was not necessary to rule on the allegation of a violation of Article   13. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Charalambidis v. Greece (no. 4723/07) Sossoadouno v. Greece (no. 29845/06) The applicant Charalambos Charalambidis is a Greek national who was born in 1965 and lives in Thessaloniki (Greece). Charles Amara Sossoadouno, the applicant in the second case, is a Guinean national who was born in 1969.   M. Charalambidis is a private detective. In August 1998 criminal proceedings were brought against him for telephone tapping. He was found guilty of the charges and sentenced on appeal to seven months’ imprisonment, suspended. He lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed by the Court of Cassation in July 2006.   Mr Sossoadouno was arrested in January 2003 on suspicion of conspiracy, forgery, abduction and attempted blackmail. The proceedings against him are currently pending.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had been excessive.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 in both cases on account of the excessive length of the proceedings in question – more than seven years and ten months in the case of Mr Charalambidis, and more than five years and three months to date for Mr Sossoadouno. It awarded Mr Charalambidis EUR 5,000 and Mr Sossoadouno EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 2 Kabili v. Greece (no. 28606/05) The applicant, Skender Kabili, is an Albanian national who was born in 1970 and lives on the island of Euboea (Greece).   The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody in May 2003 on suspicion of murder and unlawful possession of weapons. In October 2004 he was acquitted. On 14 January 2005 the Athens Court of Appeal dismissed a claim in which the applicant sought compensation for his pre-trial detention on the ground that, having failed to prove his innocence, the applicant had “deliberately made himself responsible for his own detention”. Relying on Article 6 § 2 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleged that the reasons given by the Athens Court of Appeal in dismissing his compensation claim were incompatible with the principle of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in criminal cases.   The Court considered that the fact of requiring the applicant, without any qualification or reservation, to have proved his innocence during a period when he benefited from the presumption of innocence and of drawing adverse consequences from his alleged failure to do so, specifically by dismissing his claim for compensation, was difficult to reconcile with the requirements of the Convention. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 and awarded Mr Kabili EUR 10,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Louli v. Greece (no. 43374/06) The applicant, Dionysia Louli, is a Greek national who was born in 1925 and lives in Athens.   The case concerned a complaint lodged by the applicant, on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her husband, who was senile, alleging that money had been fraudulently removed from their joint bank account. When she lodged an appeal after the death of her husband she mentioned that she was acting on her own behalf and as his sole heir. However, the Court of Cassation pointed out that this double capacity did not tally with the appeal’s record of deposit prepared by its registrar and refused her leave to appeal in that capacity. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that the Court of Cassation, by its excessive formalism, had infringed her right of access to a court.   The Court noted that there could be no possible doubt that, throughout the proceedings, the applicant was seeking to defend not only her own interests, but also those of her husband. It concluded that the Court of Cassation had been excessively formalistic, thus depriving the applicant of the right of access to a court. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mrs Louli EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 8 Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway (no. 265/07) The applicants are three members of the same family: Louis Osaze Darren Omoregie, a Nigerian national, who, born in Sierra Leone in 1979, entered Norway and claimed asylum in   August 2001; his wife since February 2003, Elisabeth Skundberg Darren, a Norwegian national, born in 1977; and, their daughter, Selma, a Norwegian national, born in 2006. Mr   Omoregie was expelled to Nigeria in March 2007.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the decision to expel Mr   Omoregie to Nigeria with a prohibition of re-entry into Norway for five years. They relied on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court considered that the impact of Mr Omoregie’s expulsion to Nigeria had constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for family life. That interference had had a legal basis in national law, namely section 29(1)(a) and (4) of the Immigration Act, and had pursued the legitimate aim of preventing “disorder or crime” and protecting the “economic well-being of the country”. The Court noted that Mr Omoregie had lived in Nigeria from the age of six months to 22 years; he also had three brothers and had studied there. In comparison, his links with Norway were weak. He had formed family bonds at various stages during his stay in the country but it had to have been clear to Mr Omoregie and Ms Darren from the beginning of their relationship that the prospects of settling as a couple in Norway had been precarious. Confronting the Norwegian authorities with Mr Omoregie’s presence in the country as a fait accompli had not entitled him to any right of residence. Nor did the Court consider that there had been insurmountable obstacles for the applicants to develop a family life in Nigeria or in any event for Mr Omoregie’s wife and daughter to visit him there. Finally, the Court noted that the purpose of the decision to prohibit Mr Omoregie from re-entry into Norway for five years had been, given the fact that he had stayed in Norway unlawfully between September 2002 and February 2003, to ensure that resilient immigrants did not undermine the effective implementation of rules on immigration control. The Court was therefore satisfied that the interference at issue had been supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and had struck a fair balance between the personal interests of the applicants and public interest in ensuring effective implementation of immigration control. It therefore held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article   8. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Protsenko v. Russia (no. 13151/04) The applicant, Alla Petrovna Protsenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Taganrog (Russia).   The case concerned Ms Protsenko’s complaint about the quashing of a final judgment in her favour by way of supervisory review with regard to a dispute over a plot of land.   The Court observed that the final judgment in the applicant’s favour had been set aside by way of supervisory review on the ground that the domestic courts had failed to establish all the circumstances of the case, notably to invite the owner of the disputed land to participate in the proceedings. In such circumstances the quashing of the final judgment had been justified and the applicant had not been deprived of her right of access to a court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Salmanov v. Russia (no. 3522/04) The applicant, Saipudi Zeindinovich Salmanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and is serving a ten-year prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region (Russia) for, in particular, conspiracy to commit murder.   The case concerned Mr Salmanov’s complaint that, kept in the same cell as an inmate who was HIV-positive, he was exposed to a risk of HIV infection. He also complained about the conditions of his transport to and from, and confinement at, Moscow City Court courthouse, the excessive length of his detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   With reference to applicable international standards, the Court rejected as unfounded the applicant’s complaint about the alleged risk of HIV infection. However, the Court noted that the applicant had been transported in cramped conditions twice a day on 100 separate occasions when court hearings had to be held in his case. On those days at the courthouse, he had not been given adequate food and had further been confined in cramped conditions. That treatment had occurred during the applicant’s trial when he had most needed his powers of concentration and mental alertness. Given those considerations cumulatively, the Court concluded that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of the authorities having failed to sufficiently justify the length, more than six years, of the applicant’s detention.   Finally, it held that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, which had lasted more than seven years.   Mr   Salmanov was awarded EUR   9,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 3 (treatment) Violations of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 42239/02) The applicant, Nikolay Anatolyevich Starokadomskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and is serving a ten-and-a-half year prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region (Russia) for aggravated murder.   The case concerned Mr Starokadomskiy’s complaints about: the conditions of his detention on remand, of transport to and from, and confinement at, Moscow City Court courthouse; and, the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5 §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court found that the fact that the applicant had been confined to overcrowded cells for more than four years during his detention in Moscow remand centre no. 77/1, except for one hour of exercise per day, had to have caused him intense physical discomfort and mental suffering. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant’s detention in that remand centre.   Furthermore, the applicant had been transported in cramped conditions on 195 separate occasions over a period of several years when court hearings had to be held in his case. On those days, he had not been given adequate food and had further been confined in unacceptable conditions at the remand centre assembly section and then at the courthouse. That treatment had occurred during the applicant’s trial when he had most needed his powers of concentration and mental alertness. Given those considerations cumulatively, the Court concluded that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in further violation of Article 3.   The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1   (c) as regards the applicant’s detention on 1   and 2   July 2002 without valid judicial authorisation; a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of the authorities’ failure to sufficiently justify the length, more than six years, of the applicant’s detention; and, a violation of Article   5 §   4 on account of the domestic courts’ delays in examining the applicant’s appeals against his remand orders.   Mr   Starokadomskiy was awarded EUR   15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   785 for costs and expenses. (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 Bormotov v. Russia (no. 24435/04)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Filonenko v. Russia (no. 22094/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Sukhorukov v. Russia (no. 23596/04) The Court found the above violations in these three cases concerning the applicants’ complaints that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce final judgments in their 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 Krnić v. Croatia (no. 8854/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Rizman v. Croatia (no. 28704/06) Chatzimanikas v. Greece (no. 487/07) Chelmi v. Greece (no. 48701/06) Gorou v. Greece (no. 4350/03) Lambropoulou v. Greece (no. 8009/07) Lemonidou v. Greece (no. 509/07) Siafaka v. Greece (no. 32025/06) Shore Technologies v. Luxembourg (no. 35704/06)   ***   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 Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.