CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } 399 18.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Italy, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 20 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk   (*).   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Ogaristi v. Italy (application no. 231/07)* The applicant, Alberto Ogaristi, is an Italian national who was born in 1972. He is currently being held in Rome-Rebibbia Prison following his conviction, which became final in 2006, for murder and attempted murder. Relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that it had been impossible for him to examine the sole prosecution witness either during the investigation or at the hearing, since he had become untraceable. Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (fairness) Just satisfaction: 15,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Udorovic v. Italy (no. 38532/02)* The applicant, Aldo Udorovic, is an Italian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Terracina (Italy). He is a member of the Sinti community. In decisions of 1996 and 1999 the Rome City Council ordered a census and the evacuation of the travellers’ encampment where he lived. He sought judicial review of those decisions in the administrative courts. He also brought an action in the civil courts, alleging that the same decisions had been discriminatory. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, he complained that the civil proceedings had been unfair. No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (on account of proceedings not having been public) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (undeniably wrong assessment by court of appeal of important facts) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Vetrenko v. Moldova (no. 36552/02) The applicant, Vilen Vetrenko, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău. Sentenced to 16   years in prison for the alleged participation in a murder committed in 1997, he complained of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, in particular that the domestic courts had given insufficient reasons for his conviction and that it had been based on self-incriminatory statements he had made without having access to the lawyer chosen by him. He relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 650 (costs and expenses)   Belka v. Poland (no. 20870/04) Czekień v. Poland (no. 25168/05) Szal v. Poland (no. 41285/02) The applicants, Walentyna Belka, Helena Czekień and Stefania Szal, are three Polish nationals who were born in 1934, 1930 and 1925 respectively, and live in Poland. Their cases concerned compensation entitlements granted by the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation to victims of various forms of persecution by the German occupational authorities during the Second World War (the so-called “second compensation scheme”). During the Second World War, Ms   Belka’s family was expelled from their farm, placed in a camp for expelled persons and subsequently shipped off to eastern Poland where they were assigned to live with local farmers. Ms   Czekień’s husband was a forced labourer for a railway company under German management. Ms   Szal was subjected to forced labour on a farm owned by a German family. Ms   Belka and Ms   Czekień were refused payments under the compensation scheme for failure to meet the eligibility criteria and, in Ms   Belka’s case, for insufficient evidence confirming the imprisonment in the camp for expelled persons. Ms   Szal was granted financial assistance under the scheme, but was refused further payment for her internment in a concentration camp, for insufficient evidence that she had been imprisoned there. All three applicants alleged a breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) in respect of the proceedings before the Foundation. In each case: violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 to each of the applicants (non-pecuniary damage), plus EUR   86 to Mrs   Czekień (costs and expenses)   Bessler v. Romania (no. 25669/04)* The applicant, Lucie Henriette Bessler, was a Romanian national who was born in 1926 and died in 2008 (her heirs pursued the proceedings before the Court). Her father, a Polish national who lived in Romania, owned or co-owned several buildings in Bucharest which were seized by the Soviet Union in 1946 on the basis of decisions that erroneously considered him to be German. In 1958 the buildings passed into the ownership of the Romanian State, which from 1995 sold a number of flats in them. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), the applicant complained that an action for recovery of possession of the buildings had been dismissed without an examination of the merits of her claims. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000, jointly to the applicants’ heirs (non-pecuniary damage)   Ozerov v. Russia (no. 64962/01) The applicant, Sergey Ozerov, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Moscow. Sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment for a violation of traffic rules which caused bodily harm and for aiding and abetting burglary, both offences allegedly committed in 1999, he complained that his trial had been held in the absence of a prosecutor, in violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,600 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,850 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Di Cola v. Italy (no. 44897/98)* In a judgment of 15   December 2005 the Court held that an interference with the applicants’   right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and that there had therefore been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it. In today’s judgment the Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   3,500 for pecuniary damage and EUR   20,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   Oktaş and Others v. Turkey (nos. 14604/05, 14609/05, 28820/05, 28822/05, 40338/05, 42038/05, 45287/05 and 45297/05)* In this case the applicants complained in particular of the delay by the administrative authorities in paying compensation for the expropriation of their land. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Each application: violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Brignoli and Others v. Italy (nos. 19877/03, 32969/02, 18359/03 and 18363/03)* Limata and Others v. Italy (nos. 5486/03, 5491/03, 5495/03, 5498/03, 5499/03, 5501/03, 5502/03, 5506/03, 7591/03, 7598/03, 7602/03 and 7604/03)* Kaniewska v. Poland (no. 8518/08) Przybylska-Conroy v. Poland (no. 49490/08) Ciută v. Romania (no. 35527/04) Bíro v. Slovakia (No. 3) (no. 22050/05) Bíro v. Slovakia (No. 4) (no. 26456/06) Bíro v. Slovakia (No. 5) (no. 45109/06) Kocianová v. Slovakia (no. 21692/06) Kocianová v. Slovakia (No. 2) (no. 45167/06) 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. All cases: violation of Article 6 § 1 Bíro (No. 4) and Kocianová cases: violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)   ***   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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.