CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 novembre 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 } .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   806 14.11.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Greece and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11   Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] , with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 10 Krone Verlag GmbH & Co Kg v. Austria (No. 5) (application no. 9605/03) The applicant, Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG, is the owner of the daily newspaper Neue Kronenzeitung with its registered office in Vienna. In May 1999 the newspaper ran a series of articles criticising Mr Bruck, at that time managerial director of Techno-Z FH, a scientific research company sponsored notably by the Region of Salzburg. The articles accused Mr   Bruck in particular of “financial wanderlust” and shortcomings in Techno-Z FH’s bookkeeping. Mr Bruck was dismissed from his post in October 1999. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complained about its ensuing conviction for defamation and that it was fined 14,500   euros   (EUR) in compensation.   Considering that the press was one of the means by which politicians and public opinion could verify that public money was spent according to the principles of accounting and not used to enrich certain individuals, the European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant company had complied with its duties and responsibilities as a public “watchdog”. The Court found that there existed a sufficient factual basis for the value judgments at issue, because the applicant had based its articles on the company’s financial and audit reports which had revealed inaccurate book-keeping, very high travel expenses and the payment of high royalties. The Court further found that even if the remaining statements at issue had been considered statements of fact, the applicant company had proved that they had been on the whole correct.   Although it would have been advisable for the applicant company to have obtained comments from Mr Bruck before publishing the articles, the mere fact that it had not done so had not been sufficient to hold that the interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression had been justified. Therefore, the Court found that the applicant company’s conviction and the imposition of a fine for having made the statements in question had been disproportionate to the aim pursued, namely the protection of the reputation and rights of others. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06) The applicants, Elisavet Fakiridou and her sister Aikaterini Schina, are Greek nationals who were born in 1959 and 1962 respectively and live in Komotini (Greece). They are the owners of a plot of land which they inherited in the centre of Komotini.   In 1933, by virtue of a decree amending the town’s development plan, a large part of the land in question was expropriated. In 1979 a decision designating the plots of land that had been expropriated and the proportional shares of the compensation due to the owners was adopted. In 1989 two owners of an adjacent plot of land, which had not been expropriated but would increase in value once the expropriation took place, applied to the Greek courts to be granted permission themselves to pay the compensation due to the applicants and thus enable the expropriation to be carried out. In 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed them to pay compensation to the applicants once the amount had been set. Alongside those proceedings, the applicants applied to the administrative authorities and, having been unsuccessful, to the Greek courts, seeking to have the order for the expropriation of their land revoked. In August 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed their application.   Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of the refusal of the Greek authorities and courts to lift the encumbrance affecting their property.   The Court observed that the applicants’ land had been subject to an encumbrance since 1933, and that since 1979 the authorities had not taken any steps to carry out the expropriation and pay compensation to them. The only procedure aimed at compensating the applicants had been initiated by the owners of the adjacent land. In the Court’s view, the State’s obligation to respect and protect individuals’ property could not be dependent on the initiative of third parties. It therefore concluded that such interference with the applicants’ rights had upset, to their detriment, the fair balance that had to be struck between the protection of property and the demands of the general interest, in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. (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) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Azaryev v. Russia (no. 18338/05) Bronich v. Russia (no. 805/03) Galikhanova v. Russia (no. 15407/05) Kabanov v. Russia (no. 37758/03) Kuzminskiy v. Russia (no. 40081/03) Larionov v. Russia (no. 42431/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Vakulenko v. Russia (no. 38035/04) The Court found the above violations in these seven cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all, and concerning the partial quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant by way of supervisory review in the case of Azaryev .   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Litvinova v. Russia (no. 34489/05) The Court held that there had been the above violation concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to apprise the applicant of the appeal hearing in good time.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Zhuk v. Russia (no. 42389/02) In this case the Court found the above violations on account of the delayed execution of final judicial decisions given in the applicant’s favour.     ***   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 Raif-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.