CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 février 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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .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   86 5.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, France, Greece, Romania and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 7 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gabric v. Croatia (application no. 9702/04) The applicant, Darinka Gabrić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Serbian origin who was born in 1952 and lives in Pforzheim (Germany). Stopped at the border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia in January 2002 by the Croatian customs authorities, Ms Gabrić was searched and found, in particular, to be in possession of undeclared German currency. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, she complained that she had been fined and that the most part of the money she had been carrying across the border (20,000   German   marks, the equivalent of approximately 10,226   euros   (EUR)) had been confiscated in the ensuing proceedings against her. The European Court of Human Rights first noted that Ms Gabric had already been fined at customs for failing to declare that money and considered that fine to have been a sufficient sanction to prevent future breaches of the national legal requirement to declare currency carried across borders. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 to the Convention and awarded Ms   Gabrić EUR   10,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,850 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Sarantidis v. Greece (no. 23163/07) The applicant, Minas Sarantidis, is a Greek national who was born in 1975 and lives in Athens. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him for embezzlement. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings (more than six years). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Vontas and Others v. Greece (no. 43588/06) The applicants, Christos Vontas, Anna Kapetanaki and Filia Vontas, are Greek nationals who live in Athens. The case concerned a dispute between the applicants and the State about the ownership of a plot of land on the island of Spetses (Greece). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that the result of the proceedings before the Greek courts amounted to a deprivation of possessions contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1   in that the Greek courts’ interpretation of domestic law led to an interference with the applicants’ rights which was not justified. The Court found in particular that the decisions of the Greek courts had led to injustice as, concrete evidence having been ignored, Roman-Byzantine law had been applied in the case and the Greek courts had found the State to be the rightful owner of the disputed land. The Court further held under Article   41 (just satisfaction), by six votes to one, that Greece had to restore to the applicants their ownership rights over the disputed land. The applicants were awarded EUR   12,493, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) Makeyev v. Russia (no. 13769/04) The applicant, Anatoliy Makeyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in the Moscow Region. In June 2003 he was convicted of armed robbery and robbery and sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial), he alleged that the criminal proceedings in his case had been unfair as he had not been able to question the three witnesses against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) because the domestic courts had based their decision to convict Mr Makeyev to a decisive extent on statements of witnesses whom he had not been able to cross-examine. The Court awarded Mr Makeyev EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Sakhnovskiy v. Russia (no. 21272/03) The applicant, Sergey Sakhnovskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Novosibirsk (Russia). In December 2001 he was convicted of murdering his father and uncle and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, in particular because, at an appeal hearing, he had not been provided with adequate legal assistance and could not effectively defend himself as he could only communicate with the court via a video link. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) in that, Mr Sakhnovskiy and his lawyer having had no personal contact before and during the hearing, the role of the latter had been reduced to a mere formality. Nor could the lawyer effectively plead the applicant’s case as he had had to base it on points of appeal lodged five years earlier by another lawyer. Mr Sakhnovskiy was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   120 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Sun Huan Xin v. Russia (no. 31004/02) The applicant, Sun Huan Xin, is a national of the People’s Republic of China who was born in 1949 and lives in Khabarovsk (Russia). He is a salesman. Stopped in July 2001 by the Russian customs’ authorities when arriving at Khabarovsk Seaport, he was charged with attempted smuggling for not declaring 72,300   United   States   dollars (the equivalent of approximately EUR   57,000), and 760   Chinese yuan (the equivalent of approximately EUR   87). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained that the subsequent confiscation measure, imposed by the domestic court in respect of all that money, had been unlawful. The Court first noted the lawful origin of the applicant’s money and the fact that national law provided for confiscation only in cases of “criminally acquired” money. It therefore found that it had been impossible for Mr Huan Xin to foresee any detrimental consequence of his carrying lawfully acquired money across a border and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Mr Huan Xin did not submit a claim for just satisfaction; however, the Court observed that he could request the reopening of the criminal proceedings against him, which was a possibility under Russian law in so far as a violation of the Convention had been established. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   The following case raised an issue which had already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Drăculeţ v. Romania (no. 20294/02) The Court held in a judgment of 6 December 2007 that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the double registration of title to a plot of land. At the time of the judgment the Court found that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In the judgment delivered today the Court held that the State was to return the applicant’s land to her and that in the event of failure to do so, it would have to pay her EUR   80,000. The Court also awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   200 for costs and expenses.     ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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.