CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .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   152 26.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] , with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 Verein der Freunde der Christengemeinschaft and Others v. Austria (no. 76581/01) The applicants are a religious community, Verein der Freunde der Christengemeinschaft, established in Austria in 1998, and four of its members: Martin David, Christoph Leisegang, Erich Cibulka, three Austrian nationals; and, Ute König, a German national. They live in Vienna. The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the Austrian authorities’ refusal to grant their community legal personality as a religious society and the excessive length of the related proceedings. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Articles   9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court observed that the Austrian Government acknowledged that the applicant religious group had existed in Austria, in the form of an association, since August 1945. Having found that the competent authorities had been long familiar with the applicant religious group, the Court found that the ten-year waiting period applied in respect of the applicants had not been justified, in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Lisev v. Bulgaria (application no. 30380/03) The applicant, Ivan Danchov Lisev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Mirkovo (Bulgaria). He relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). The proceedings in his case, which was not a particularly complex one, having lasted more than seven years and five months at three levels of jurisdiction, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant 1,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   600   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 Eminbeyli v. Russia (no. 42443/02) The applicant, Gunduz Aydin ogly Eminbeyli, is a stateless person of Azeri ethnic origin who was born in 1956 and currently lives in Sweden. In February 1996 he left Azerbaijan for Russia, where he was granted refugee status and the right to move to Sweden. However in September 2001, at the request of the Azerbaijani authorities, the Russian police arrested him with a view to his extradition. He was ultimately released in October 2001 and moved to Sweden in November 2001. Relying on Article   5   §§   1   (f) and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complained in particular that his detention had been unlawful and that the judicial review of his detention had been ineffective. The Court held unanimously that Mr Eminbeyli had been detained unlawfully in 2001, in violation of Article   5   §   1   (f), given that he had been granted refugee status and the relevant Russian legislation prohibited the extradition of refugees. The Court further found a violation of Article   5   §   4 as the authorities had held the first court hearing to review the lawfulness of his detention with an eleven-week delay and had delivered their final decision on it four months after Mr Eminbeyli had been released. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 Fedorov v. Russia (no. 63997/00) The applicant, Vladimir Fedorov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Taganrog (Russia). Relying on Article   6 §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Fedorov complained about the quashing by way of supervisory review of a final judgment in a criminal case against him for theft. He also complained that he had not been notified of the application for supervisory review and could therefore not defend himself in the ensuing proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6, both because the quashing of the final domestic court’s judgment had not been intended to correct a fundamental judicial error or a miscarriage of justice, but had been used merely for the purpose of obtaining a rehearing, and because Mr Fedorov had not been given a chance to lodge objections to having the case reopened and, unlike the prosecutor, could not participate in the supervisory review hearing. The Court awarded Mr   Fedorov EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 42617/02) 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 legislation on restitution.     ***   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.