CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 janvier 2009

.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   28 15.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 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.     Two violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Georgi Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 31365/02) The applicant, Georgi Borisov Dimitrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Sofia. He was arrested and taken into police custody in May 2001 on suspicion of fraud. He was released in August 2004 after serving a term of imprisonment. Relying on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleged that he had been beaten by police officers while in custody in May 2001. He also complained of the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the injuries inflicted on the applicant and a further violation of the same Article because of the ineffectiveness of the investigation. It awarded the applicant 5,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   950 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 8 Ćosić v. Croatia (no. 28261/06) The applicant, Katarina Ćosić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Požega (Croatia). Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for one’s home), she complained that the authorities obliged her to vacate the flat in which she had been living for more than 18   years. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 and awarded Mrs   Ćosić EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   367.97 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Charalambides v. Cyprus (no. 35885/04) The applicant, Michael Charalambides, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1951 and lives in Moutoullas (Cyprus). In 1998, criminal proceedings were brought against him on charges of forgery and obtaining funds through misrepresentation. In November 2002 he was sentenced to 15   months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of the proceedings against him and claimed that on this basis he should have been discharged or the prison sentence suspended. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 concerning the excessive length, approximately six years, of the criminal proceedings against Mr   Charalambides. He was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,850 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 41 (just satisfaction) not ready for decision Michael Theodossiou Ltd. v. Cyprus (no. 31811/04) The applicant, Michael Theodossiou Ltd, is a Cypriot registered company that was the owner of 4,462   square metres of immovable property located along the seaside in Limassol. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant company complained about the excessive length of expropriation proceedings concerning its property. It also claimed that the expropriation proceedings, and the amount of compensation paid to it more than 30   years after they had started, had violated the company’s rights under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length, approximately 11   years and seven months, of the proceedings. It also held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and 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 5 § 1 Faure v. France (no. 19421/04) The applicant, Thierry Faure, is a French national who was born in 1966 and is currently in prison in Muret (France). When it convicted him in absentia in February 2003 the Assize Court also issued the detention order (arrest warrant) necessary for the conduct of the proceedings, the investigating judge having omitted to do so. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Faure alleged that his arrest and detention prior to his final conviction in October 2003 had not been in accordance with “a procedure prescribed by law”. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 and held by five votes to two 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 French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Guillard v. France (no. 24488/04) The applicant, Pierre Guillard, is a French national who was born in 1929 and lives in La Charité sur Loire (France). He is a retired harbourmaster. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained that proceedings concerning his retirement pension had been unfair. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ligue du Monde Islamique and Organisation Islamique Mondiale du Secours Islamique v. France (no. 36497/05) The applicants, the Ligue du monde islamique (Muslim World League) and the Organisation islamique mondiale du secours islamique (International Islamic Relief Organization) are two Saudi Arabian non-governmental organisations with their registered offices in Makkah Al Mukarramah and Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) respectively. In October 2003 they each lodged a complaint for defamation and applied to join the proceedings as civil parties, following the circulation in France of an article from the Egyptian daily newspaper Sot al Orouba on the subject of the attacks of 11 September 2001. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complained of the fact that their complaints had been declared inadmissible on the ground that they had not completed the formalities required in order to be allowed to take part in court proceedings in France. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was unnecessary to examine the case under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1. The Court also considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It awarded them EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Menchinskaya v. Russia (no. 42454/02) The applicant, Anna Stefanovna Menchinskaya, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Norilsk (Russia). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), she alleged that the principle of equality of arms was infringed in civil proceedings in which she claimed unemployment allowances. She alleged in particular that the prosecutor had participated in those proceedings on the side of the State agency which the applicant was suing. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 concerning the principle of equality of arms and awarded Mrs   Menchinskaya EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   250 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Oblov v. Russia (no. 22674/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Oblov, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Sagan-Nur (Russia). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him for murder. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the length, approximately four years and five months, of the criminal proceedings against him. He was awarded EUR   2,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sharomov v. Russia (no. 8927/02) The applicant, Vadim Sharomov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Irkutsk (Russia). In 1999, he was convicted for theft and sentenced to a term in prison. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that he was ill-treated while in prison. Further relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (b) and   (c) (right to a fair trial), he also claimed that the supervisory review proceedings in his case were unfair in that he had not been given an adequate opportunity to plead his case. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 concerning the unfairness of the supervisory review proceedings and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 3. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 Yudayev v. Russia (no. 40258/03) The applicant, Nikolay Viktorovich Yudayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Rostov (Russia). In March 2003 he was arrested and criminal proceedings were brought against him for forging payment orders which were used to receive large amounts of diesel fuel. In 2004 he was sentenced to two years in prison subject to three years’ probation period. Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that his detention on remand had been unlawful and excessively long and had not been attended by appropriate procedural guarantees. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1 on account of the unlawfulness of Mr   Yudayev’s detention from 5   to 22   January 2004. It also held that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   4 concerning the lack of speediness of review of the applicant’s appeal against a detention order of 30   April 2003, but no violation of that article with regard to the applicant’s appeal against detention orders of 4   August and 9   September 2003. Mr   Yudayev was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   (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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Koprinarovi v. Bulgaria (no. 57176/00) The Court found the above violation in this case on account of the applicants having been ordered to vacate their property following the application of restitution legislation.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kozodoyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 2701/04, 3597/04, 11898/04, 31964/04 and 34826/04) Zhuravlev v. Russia (no. 5249/06) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ 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) Holzinger v. Austria (No. 3) (no. 9318/05) Klug v. Austria (no. 33928/05) Argyrou and Others v. Greece (no. 10468/04)     ***   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 Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.