CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 23 décembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s63EB1169 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .sC547D3F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s73AF59F6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s365FF37E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:11pt } .s757EE3D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:11pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .s4C5A13DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s2C7A3593 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; color:#0000ff } .s9A3723B8 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0000ff } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right }   993 23.12.2009 Press release issued by the Registrar REQUESTS FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   At its last meeting (10 December 2009), the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided:   1. To accept the request for referral in the following case :   Perdigão v. Portugal (application no. 24768/06)   The applicants, João José Perdigão and Maria José Queiroga Perdigão, are Portuguese nationals. They claimed over 20 million euros in compensation after a 130,000 m² piece of land they owned was expropriated in 1995 to build a motorway. Their claim was rejected and they were awarded as compensation just over 197,000 euros (EUR). The legal costs they were required to pay for the proceedings exceeded the amount of the award. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained that the compensation awarded to them had been fully absorbed by the amount they had to pay to the State in legal costs.   In its judgment of 4 August 2009, the Chamber examining the case held that the applicants could not be criticised for having endeavoured to persuade the court, using the procedural means available to them, to include in the award elements which they deemed to be essential (in this case the profits they could have made by exploiting the quarry situated on the land). The implementation of the Portuguese system for determining and fixing legal costs in this case had resulted in their receiving no compensation whatsoever for the deprivation of their property. Accordingly, a “fair balance” had not been struck between the general interest of the community and the rights of the applicants. The Chamber held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants 190,000 EUR in respect of pecuniary damage. On 10 December 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request. The text of the Chamber judgments and corresponding press releases are available on the Court’s Internet site: http://www.echr.coe.int. This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.   2. To reject the requests for referral in the 17 cases listed below. Judgments in these cases are now final . 1   Féret v. Belgium (15615/07), judgment of 16 July2009   Zaharievi v. Bulgaria (22627/03), judgment of 2 July 2009     Gorgievski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (18002/02), judgment of 16 July 2009   Joubert v. France (30345/05), judgment of 23 July 2009   Willem v. France (10883/05), judgment of 16 July 2009   Rossitto v. Italy (7977/03), judgment of 26 May2009   Dattel v. Luxembourg (18522/06), judgment of 30 July 2009     Pasternak v. Poland (42785/06), judgment of 16 July 2009   Schmidt v. Romania (28777/03), judgment of 30 June 2009   Danilenkov and Others v. Russia (67336/01), judgment of 30 July 2009   Karimov and Others v. Russia (29851/05), judgment of 16 July 2009   Mutsayeva v. Russia (24297/05), judgment of 23 July 2009   Sutyazhnik v. Russia (8269/02), judgment of 23 July 2009   Yusupova and Others v. Russia (5428/05), judgment of 9 July 2009   Bodrožić v. Serbia (32550/05), judgment of 23 June 2009     Bodrožić and Vujin v. Serbia (38435/05), judgment of 23 June 2009   Gaspari v. Slovenia (21055/03), judgment of 21 July 2009   **** Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) or   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 44 § 2 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of a Chamber becomes final when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43.