CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 mars 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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   226 18.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Greece and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk   (*).   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Krumpholz v. Austria (application no. 13201/05) The applicant, Claus Krumpholz, is a German national who was born in 1965 and lives in Grafengehaig (Germany). Convicted for speeding by Austrian courts in 2003, he complained that the courts had found him guilty only because of his refusal to disclose the identity of the person who had driven his car at the time in question, in violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   2 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 7,000   euros (EUR) (costs and expenses)   Business Support Centre v. Bulgaria (no. 6689/03) The applicant organisation, Business Support Centre, is a non-profit organisation based in Ruse (Bulgaria). It complained that, in spite of its full compliance with its statutory VAT reporting obligations, the domestic authorities had deprived it of the right to deduct the VAT it had paid on a supply only because the supplier had failed to comply with its own VAT reporting and payment obligations. The applicant organisation alleged that the authorities’ decision had breached its rights under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 6,542 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 656 (costs and expenses)   Maksimov v. Russia (no. 43233/02) The applicant, Vladimir Maksimov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Krasnoyarsk (Russia). Mr   Maksimov alleged that he had been ill-treated by the police in April 2000 – when the police broke into his house following a tip-off about an unregistered weapon – and in December 2001 – when arrested for refusing to be searched in the street. He complained in particular about the fact that, following the first incident, the domestic courts had refused to award him compensation for damage; and, following the second incident, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegation. He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy). No violation of Article 13 No violation of Article 3 (alleged ill-treatment) Violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   SPK Dimskiy v. Russia (no. 27191/02) Tronin v. Russia (no. 24461/02) The applicant is SPK Dimskiy, an agricultural production co-operative established in 1992 in Novoaleksandrovka (Tambov District, Russia), and Sergey Tronin, a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in the same village. Both applicants are holders of Urozhay-90 bonds introduced by the Government in the 1990s to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the State in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of consumer goods in high demand at the time (such as refrigerators, washing machines and cars) following economic reform and privatisation. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complained about Russia’s continued failure to legislate on the procedure for redeeming their bonds. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), SPK Dimskiy further complained about the unfairness of the commercial proceedings in which it had sought compensation for the bonds. In both cases: violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Case of SPK Dimskiy: no violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: -   SPK Dimskiy: EUR   1,000 (costs and expenses). The Court found that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. -   Tronin: EUR   1,800 (non-pecuniary damage)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Maria Ivanova v. Bulgaria (no. 10905/04) Kamilleri v. Greece (no. 9842/08)* Nikolaos Kopsidis v. Greece (no. 2920/08)* 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 cases of Maria Ivanova v. Bulgaria and Nikolaos Kopsidis v. Greece, the applicants also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). Case of Kamilleri v. Greece: violation of Article 6 § 1 Cases of Maria Ivanova v. Bulgaria and Nikolaos Kopsidis v. Greece: violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 13     ***   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.