CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; 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 }   253 25.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Bulgaria, Germany, and   “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven   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.     Popnikolov v. Bulgaria (application no. 30388/02) The applicant, Dimitar Nikolov Popnikolov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Varna. Having rented a State-owned production facility in 1992, he complained that the domestic authorities had failed to comply with a final court judgment in his favour and had deprived him of a legitimate expectation of acquiring the facility under the preferential privatisation procedure for lessees of State-owned properties. He alleged a violation of his rights under 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. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Mutlag v. Germany (no. 40601/05)* The applicant, Saeid Mutlag, is a Jordanian national who was born in Germany in 1981 and lives in Amman (Jordan). He grew up in Germany, where he received all his schooling. He was granted a permanent residence permit in 1997. However, in 2006 he was deported to Jordan with permanent effect, further to a decision taken in 2002 after a succession of serious criminal offences. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained about his deportation. No violation of Article 8   Wetjen v. Germany (no. 30175/07) The applicant, Bernd Rüdiger Wetjen, is a German national who was born in 1951 and lives in Hildesheim (Germany). He complained that the criminal proceedings against him on charges of a number of offences allegedly committed while he acted as a court-appointed liquidator, including the granting of an undue benefit and embezzlement, of which he was eventually acquitted, lasted more than eight years, in violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Also relying on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he further complained that he had had no effective remedy to complain about the length of proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: 9,000 euros (EUR) (costs and expenses). No claim made by the applicant for non-pecuniary damage.   Mitreski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 11621/09) The applicant, Sime Mitreski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Kicevo (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). He complained in particular that his order for house arrest during a criminal investigation against him on suspicion of extortion of money from a minor had been replaced with an order for detention in prison in proceedings which were not adversarial and without holding an oral hearing, in violation in particular of Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security). Violation of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: EUR   765 (costs and expenses). The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.     Length-of-proceedings cases   Petermann v. Germany (no. 901/05) Reinhard v. Germany (no. 485/09) Jovanovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 40233/03) In these cases, the applicants complained under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The judgments against Germany, concerning issues which are the subject of well-established case law by the Court, were delivered by a three-judge Committee under the Court's new procedures provided for in Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights which Germany accepted on a provisional basis pending the entry into force of the Protocol. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (all the cases)     ***   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.