CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 octobre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s71C841A { width:90.1pt; display:inline-block } .sB5916622 { width:122.11pt; display:inline-block } .s240191E5 { width:135.45pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     524   23.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Greece and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1] [Note2]   S.H.K. v. Bulgaria (application no. 37355/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, S.H.K., is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Vratsa. In 1994 he was prosecuted for making death threats. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained of the length of the criminal proceedings (which lasted at least five years, one month and 18   days).   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Diamantides v. Greece (no. 60821/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Spyros Diamantides is a Greek National who was born in 1948. He practises homeopathic medicine.   Following accusations by fellow practitioners that the applicant was the spiritual guide of an unofficial religious organisation, his home and surgery were searched on 28 June 1995. Criminal proceedings were brought against him in May 1996 and the case is still pending in the Athens Criminal Court.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the length of proceedings.   The Court found that the proceedings had started on the day the applicant’s home was searched. They had thus far lasted almost eight years and two months and were still pending. That period was unreasonable and the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded Mr Diamantides EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Timofeyev v. Russia (no. 58263/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 1 Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Nikolay Vasilyevich Timofeyev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Orsk (Russia). In 1981, criminal charges were brought against him for dissemination of anti-Soviet propaganda. The police searched his home and confiscated a radio, audio recordings, books, newspaper clippings and manuscripts in connection with the charges against him.     In April 1982 he was found not guilty on the grounds of insanity and detained in a psychiatric hospital. He was released in April 1986. In September 1992 the Orenburg Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a statement acknowledging that the applicant had been unlawfully persecuted by the State.   From 1995 to 1997 Mr Timofeyev tried unsuccessfully to recover the property that had been confiscated.   On 22 July 1998 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk ordered the Federal Treasury Department to pay him 2,570.92 Russian roubles (RUR) compensation and RUR 200 for legal costs. However, despite lengthy execution proceedings, the sums were never recovered.   On 29 June 2001 the court delivered a new judgment in the case, awarding the applicant RUR   2,869.50 in compensation for the property and RUR 1,000 in legal costs.   On 18 December 2001 the bailiff ruled that the warrant had been executed, as the applicant’s bank account had been credited with the sum awarded on 30 November 2001. The applicant challenged that decision in court, claiming that he had not received the money. On 15   February 2002 the Leninskiy District Court established that there was insufficient evidence that the sum had been paid and quashed the bailiff’s decision.   In a letter of 31 October 2002, the Russian Government informed the Court that the sum awarded on 29 June 2001 had been paid to the applicant on 30 November 2001, but this was disputed by the applicant in a letter to the Court of 18 October 2002.   Mr Timofeyev complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the judgment of 22 July 1998, which had become final on 8 December 1998, had not been enforced until, at the earliest, 30 November 2001, that is to say almost three years later. The delays in the execution process appeared to have been caused by the unlawful acts of the bailiffs, numerous adjournments due to the intervention of the supervisory-review authorities, and a lack of clarity in the judgment. The Court considered that the applicant should not have to bear the cost of those omissions by the State and found it unacceptable that a judgment debt against the State should have remained outstanding for such a lengthy period.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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 ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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. [Note1]   Press release for grouped judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: [case name +] [day +] month[s] + year + language [+ case names] (e.g. January 2003E (Bloggs, Durand + Dupont) or 12-14 February 2003E (Finland + France) or Reina 31012003E ), (2)   Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4) Subject: JCH or JGC . [Note2]   If you keep this sentence, do not forget to remove the corresponding sentence for each individual case.