CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 avril 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 }   318 16.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Greece and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15   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 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (fairness) Hanževački v. Croatia (application no. 17182/07) The applicant, Davor Hanževački, is a Croatian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Daruvar (Croatia). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the unfairness of proceedings brought against him for violation of computer software copyrights. The European Court of Human Rights found in particular that Mr Hanževački had not been able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing to the extent required under the Convention. Accordingly, the Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (c). It further held that the finding of a violation together with the possibility under national law to seek a fresh trial constituted sufficient just satisfaction, and awarded the applicant 5,400   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Antonopoulou and Others v. Greece (no. 49000/06) The applicants, Vagia Antonopoulou, Dimitrios Chrysafis, Emmanouil Mantousis and Nikiforos Mantousis, are Greek nationals. They own land along the main highway between Thessaloniki and Nea Moudania (Greece). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complained, among other matters, that proceedings concerning the expropriation of their land had been unfair and that the Greek courts had refused to award them special compensation for the non-expropriated parts of their land that had been devalued as a result of the widening of the highway . The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, and held that it did not need to examine separately the complaint under Article   13. It reserved its decision on the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Dellis v. Greece (no. 24977/07) Kanakis v. Greece (no. 16634/07) In these cases the applicants are two Greek nationals. Demetris Dellis, who was born in 1982, is currently imprisoned in Larissa (Greece) after being convicted of drug possession, trafficking and use, and possession of ammunition. Vassilios Kanakis, who was born in 1952, was convicted of drug trafficking and is currently imprisoned in Corfu (Greece). Relying on Article   6   §   1   (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had been excessive (five years and seven months for Mr Dellis and seven years and nine months for Mr   Kanakis). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and awarded them EUR   4,000 and EUR   5,000 respectively for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Karavelatzis v. Greece (no. 30340/07) The applicant, Georgios Karavelatzis, is a Greek national who was born in 1960 and lives on the island of Rhodes (Greece). The case concerned a dispute about ownership of a house on the island of Castellorizo (Greece), which had ended with the applicant’s conviction for fraud. Relying on Article 6   §§   1 and   2 (right to a fair trial), Mr Karavelatzis alleged that his trial had been conducted in a climate of hostility, responsibility for which laid mainly with the local press and which in his submission had infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence. The Court of Cassation, on an appeal from the applicant, declared inadmissible his argument based on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, finding that the “violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention [did] not constitute an independent ground of appeal on points of law”. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and found that it did not need to examine separately the alleged violation of Article   6   §   2. The applicant had not made any specific claim for just satisfaction. (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 Violation of Article 13 Buchkovskaya v. Ukraine (no. 32832/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Garashchenko v. Ukraine (no. 26873/05) Gnitzevich v. Ukraine (no. 29925/04) Yarmola v. Ukraine (no. 7060/04) The Court found the above violations in these 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. In the case of Bykov the applicant also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Davaris v. Greece (no. 43394/06) Gioka v. Greece (no. 44806/07) Vlastos v. Greece (no. 28803/07) Popilin v. Ukraine (no. 12470/04) Pysatyuk v. Ukraine (no. 21979/04) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Bykov v. Ukraine (no. 26675/07)     ***   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.