CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 juin 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; 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 }   527 29.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Hungary, Moldova and   Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments. The judgment available only in French is indicated with an asterisk   (*).   Cases concerning mainly excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   Just satisfaction Struck out Ipteh SA and Others v. Moldova (application no. 35367/08) The applicants are Ipteh SA, a company incorporated in Moldova; Worldway Limited, incorporated in the United Kingdom; Kapital Invest SA, incorporated in Romania; and, Ion Rusu, a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Iaşi (Romania). The latter three applicants all hold shares in Ipteh SA. In a judgment of 24   November 2009, 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 on account of the unfairness of proceedings in which the privatisation of a building in Chişinău belonging to Ipteh   SA was annulled. The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgment, the Court took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 22   April 2010 awarding the first applicant 196,952.53   Euros (EUR); the second applicant EUR   46,545.47; the third applicant EUR   58,000; and, the fourth applicant EUR   18,434.88 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. At the applicants’ request, the Court struck the remainder of the case out of the list of cases in view of its settlement at national level.   Paweł Gładkowski v. Poland (no. 24216/06)* The applicant, Paweł Franciszek Gładkowski, is a Polish national who lives in Sieradz (Poland). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention he complained, in the context of a case concerning misappropriation of loans, of the length of the criminal and civil proceedings he had brought seeking compensation for the losses he had sustained. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,600 (non-pecuniary damage)     Length of (non criminal) proceedings case   Révész v. Hungary (no. 5417/06) In this case, the applicant complained in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of labour proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1   ***   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 [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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 Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.