CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 juillet 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 }   596 23.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Russia and   “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, 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 Bowler International Unit v. France (application no. 1946/06) The applicant, Bowler International Unit, is a British company whose registered office is in Basildon (United Kingdom). In 1998 it arranged for a consignment of 276   boxes of dolls to be transported by lorry from Spain to the United Kingdom. The French customs authorities found 17   boxes containing cannabis (more than 520   kilograms) in the consignment. After the goods had been seized, confiscated and subsequently returned, in May 2003, the Amiens Court of Appeal ordered the applicant company to pay the customs authorities a sum corresponding to the value of the goods. This measure was intended to indemnify the Treasury for the loss suffered as a result of the offence and was permitted under French law because the goods had served to conceal the offence. The applicant company, whose good faith had not been disputed, submitted that the procedure applied in its case had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights and had not complied with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 in that Bowler International Unit had not had any remedies available for effectively challenging the measure imposed on it; the only possible action – against the perpetrator of the offence – did not afford it a sufficient opportunity to plead its case to the authorities. Since this issue covered the same ground as the complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court did not examine whether there had been a violation of that provision. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the pecuniary damage alleged, and awarded the applicant company 16,000   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sutyazhnik v. Russia (no. 8269/02) The applicant, “Sutyazhnik”, is an association registered in 1994 in Russia. Following the entry into force of a new law of non-governmental organisations, the association applied to the Regional Department of Justice in order to re-register as required by the law; however, its applications were refused. In June 1999 the regional commercial court ordered the Department to register the association, which decision was upheld in October 1999 by a higher level commercial court. However, in 2000 that decision was set aside by the Supreme Commercial Court on the ground that the dispute at issue was outside the jurisdiction of commercial courts and should have been decided by a court of general jurisdiction. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant association complained of having been deprived of access to a court as a result of quashing, by way of supervisory review, of the earlier   court decisions   in its favour.   The Court first noted that, as a matter of principle, the rules of jurisdiction should be respected. It then recalled its earlier case law according to which jurisdictional errors, in principle, could be regarded as a “fundamental defect” susceptible to correction by way of supervisory review. However, it observed that in the present case the rules of jurisdiction had been ambiguous at best and only clarified in 2002 when the Supreme Commercial Court specified that disputes concerning registration of non-profit organisations fell outside the competence of the commercial courts.   The Court further acknowledged that the structural procedural problems which it had identified in previous cases, namely that decisions of the lower courts in the commercial court system could be challenged indefinitely upon an application made by a State official without a request by a party, had also existed in the present case. The absence of any time-limit in respect of the possible reopening of the case had created uncertainty for the parties; the fact that it had taken the authorities less than one year to instigate the review did not affect this fundamental problem of uncertainty.   Although the Court accepted that in certain circumstances legal certainty could be disturbed in order to correct a “fundamental defect” or a “miscarriage of justice,” it maintained that in this instance, the Supreme Commercial Court’s decision to quash the earlier judgments had been motivated by a sense of legal purism, rather than a need to rectify an error of fundamental importance to the judicial system. Accordingly, the Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and awarded the applicant association EUR   500 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.   (Both applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (1st applicant) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Klimenko and Ostapenko v. Russia (nos. 30709/03 and 30727/03)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Markovtsi and Selivanov v. Russia (nos. 756/05 and 25761/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Molodyka and Others v. Russia (nos. 3447/05, 15560/05 and 21613/05) The Court found the above violations in these three cases concerning the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicants by way of supervisory review.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Veljanoska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 35640/04)     ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 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) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.