CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }   826 05.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Bulgaria, Greece and   “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Cases concerning mainly the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings can be found at the end of the press release.     Spas Todorov v. Bulgaria (application no. 38299/05) The applicant, Spas Dimitrov Todorov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Belozem (Bulgaria). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr   Todorov complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him for gang rape. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: 1,200 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (costs and expenses)   Just satisfaction Sampsonidis and Others v. Greece (no. 2834/05)* The 354 applicants are all Greek nationals or trading companies with registered offices in Greece, who were owners of land that was partially expropriated to allow for widening of a road. By a judgment of 6   December 2007, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, on account of an infringement of the applicants’ right of access to a court and on the ground that the domestic courts had refused to award them special compensation for the non-expropriated parts of their land. As the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it. Just satisfaction: EUR 1,840,000, jointly (pecuniary damage)   Société anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece (no. 44769/07)* The applicant, "Thaleia Karydi AXTE”, is a public company with its registered office on the island of Zakynthos (Greece). In 1996 a plot of land belonging to it, on part of which buildings had been constructed, was subject to compulsory sale by auction for the purposes of recovering a debt owed to a bank. The applicant company complained of the conditions in which the notice announcing the auction was served on its legal representative and of the fact that its application to have the auction set aside was dismissed as out of time. It claimed in particular that there was a violation of its right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), and of its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, guaranteed by Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Triantaris v. Greece (no. 44536/07)* The applicant, Evdokimos Triantaris, is a Greek national who was born in 1963 and lives in Salonika (Greece). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained, in particular, about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him in 2001 for fraud and using fraudulent documents, which ended only in 2007. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,500 (non-pecuniary damage)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Nachev v. Bulgaria (no. 15099/04)* Stoleski and Siljanoska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no.   17547/04)     ***   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) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.