CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 janvier 2010

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   055 21.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning The Czech Republic, Germany and   “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, available only in English.     Just satisfaction Družstevní Záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic (application no. 72034/01) The applicants are Družstevní Záložna Pria, a credit union registered in Brno (the Czech Republic), and eight Czech nationals, members of the credit union and of its management and supervisory organs. In the course of the proceedings before the Court 633   other members of the credit union also joined the proceedings. In its judgment of 31   July 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicant credit union’s complaint about having been placed in receivership and the lack of impartiality of the judicial proceedings in that regard. All complaints by the individual applicants were declared inadmissible. The Court held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision. In a judgment today, the Court rejected the applicant credit union’s request with regard to just satisfaction for damages but awarded it 24,615   euros for costs and expenses.   Length-of-proceedings cases   Wildgruber v. Germany (nos. 42402/05 and 42423/05) Pakom Slobodan Dooel v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no.   33262/03) In these 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. In the case of Wildgruber the applicant also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). (Wildgruber) Violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 (Pakom Slobodan Dooel) Violation of Article 6     ***   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.