CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 juin 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 } .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 }   463 11.6.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, France, Germany and Greece   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Trgo v. Croatia (application no. 35298/04) The applicant, Fabjan Trgo, is a Croatian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Krilo Jesenice (Croatia). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr   Trgo alleged in particular that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been violated because the domestic courts had refused to acknowledge his ownership of certain plots of land he had acquired by adverse possession. The European Court of Human Rights found that the consequences of a mistake by the State authority – enacting unconstitutional legislation in the present case – had to be borne by the State and not the individual. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, and 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 English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Laudette v. France (no. 19/05) The applicant, Francis Laudette, is a French national who was born in 1960 and lives in Paris. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained in particular of a violation of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings concerning acts of violence and false accusations committed against him by his wife in Singapore and London. The Court found unanimously that Article   6 of the Convention was applicable to the complaint and civil party application lodged by the applicant and that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1 on account of failure to provide the applicant with a copy of the report by the reporting judge for the Court of Cassation. The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr   Laudette. (The judgment is available only in French.)     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) Deiwick v. Germany (no. 17878/04) Examiliotis v. Greece (no. 15545/07) Stamouli v. Greece (no. 55862/07)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Mianowicz v. Germany (No. 2) (no. 71972/01)     ***   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.