CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 2 novembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5B2D21E2 { width:23.44pt; display:inline-block } .sF2A5F3C0 { width:63.46pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s9EE91CE9 { width:74.14pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s30F0174A { width:50.16pt; display:inline-block } .s25786498 { width:108.79pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sB36E8B53 { width:142.14pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s146D2459 { width:312.91pt; display:inline-block } .sB077A259 { width:66.83pt; display:inline-block } .sB33ADCC5 { width:105.5pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   658 2.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 22 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Kalpachka v. Bulgaria (application no. 49163/99) Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Lyubima Kostadinova Kalpachka, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria). At the time in question she worked as a journalist for Struma , a local newspaper.   In September 1994 and May 1995 the applicant was the subject of criminal defamation proceedings concerning two articles she wrote which were published in Struma . She alleged that she learned only in April 2004 during the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights that the proceedings in both cases were discontinued in June 2000.   The applicant complained about the length of those proceedings. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rigts.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of both sets of criminal proceedings, lasting nine years and seven months and eight years and eleven months respectively. The applicant was awarded 3,200   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Radoslav Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 58971/00)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 The applicant, Radoslav Iliev Popov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Nedelevo (Bulgaria).   On 24 September 1998 the applicant was charged with two burglaries and was detained on remand. On 10 April 2000 he was found guilty and sentenced to four and-a-half years’ imprisonment. None of the applicant’s numerous appeals for release were examined.   The applicant complained in particular about the length and fairness of his detention. He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court found that the authorities’ had failed to justify Mr Popov’s continued detention on remand for a period of over 18 months. Furthermore, it found that that the applicant was denied the right to take proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of that detention and that domestic law did not offer him an enforceable right to compensation. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5. The Court made no award under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Mihaescu v. Romania (no. 5060/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Vasile Mihaescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Iaşi (Romania). He is a psychologist who, at the material time, was working at the Iaşi University of Medicine and Pharmacology (“the UMF”) as a lecturer in clinical psychology and psychotherapy.   He brought legal proceedings following a decision by the UMF’s governing body to engage a different lecturer to give the lectures on psychotherapy which he had given until then. In a judgment of 22 March 2000, which subsequently became final, Iaşi Court of First Instance allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the UMF to comply with his contract of employment. In addition, on 10 June 2003 Iaşi County Court upheld an order requiring the UMF to pay the applicant the salary he would have received if permitted to give the lectures in psychotherapy he had been contracted to deliver from 22 March 2000 until the date of his reinstatement. The applicant made repeated attempts by various means to have those judgments enforced; in September 2006 he informed the European Court that he had been reinstated and had received the sums which the courts had ordered to be paid him.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant alleged that the lengthy failure to enforce the judgments in his favour had infringed his right of access to a court.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was not necessary to examine separately a complaint under Article 13. It awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Radovici and Stănescu v. Romania (nos. 68479/01, 71351/01 and 71352/01) The applicants, Ioana Cristina Radovici and Elena Stănescu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1930 and 1933 respectively and live in Bucharest.   As the former owners of three blocks of flats in Bucharest which had been nationalised, they brought legal proceedings to recover possession of the property. They won their cases and the Romanian courts ordered the return of the property concerned. As three of the flats were occupied by tenants who had signed leases with the State, the applicants asked them to sign a new lease from them, but the tenant refused.   The applicants then applied for eviction orders but judgment was given against them initially for failure to comply with the formalities laid down by Emergency Government Order no.   40/1999, which meant that the previous leases were prolonged. In subsequent proceedings, the applicants succeeded years later in obtaining eviction orders against those occupying their flats; however, they received no rent, despite the fact that the flats had been occupied for several years.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of their prolonged inability to take possession of property which had been returned to them and to receive rent for it, on account of the application of the relevant emergency provisions.   The Court considered that penalising landlords who had failed to comply with the formal conditions laid down in Emergency Government Order no.   40/1999, by imposing on them such a heavy obligation as that of keeping tenants in their property for five years, without any realistic prospect of being paid any rent, had placed them under an individual and excessive burden such as to upset a fair balance between the competing interests. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants jointly EUR 23,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 760 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Komarova v. Russia (no. 19126/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Nadezhada Nikolayevna, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Yaroslavl (Russia). Between 1991 and 1998 the applicant worked as a senior accountant in a private company called Gatchina.   On 24 July 1998 the applicant was charged with misappropriation of the company’s assets. Her case is still pending.   The applicant complained, in particular, about the length of the criminal proceedings which have lasted over eight years. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Ms Komarova EUR 4,200 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Nelyubin v. Russia (no. 14502/04)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Vladimir Konstantinovich Nelyubin, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Lipetsk (Russia). In 1994 he retired from military service.   On 27 January 2003 he was awarded damages for unpaid retirement pension payments. The judgment was subsequently quashed in supervisory-review proceedings initiated by the Military Service Commission of the Lipetsk Region.   The applicant complained about the quashing of that judgment. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court was not persuaded by the Government’s argument that the fact that the supervisory-review procedure had been initiated by the Military Commission, a party to the proceedings, was a ground to distinguish it from the numerous other cases where the Court found that the quashing of a final judicial decision by a higher court had violated the applicant’s “right to a court”   The Court noted that the Military Commission failed to exercise its right to lodge an ordinary appeal and permitted the statutory ten-day time-limit to expire without challenging the judgment. Instead, it applied for supervisory review more than three months later, after the judgment had become binding and enforceable and after the bailiffs had initiated enforcement proceedings. The Government did not point to any exceptional circumstances that would have prevented the Military Commission from making use of an ordinary appeal in good time.   The Court therefore found that, by granting the Military Commission’s request to set aside the judgment, the Presidium of the Lipetsk Regional Court infringed the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s “right to a court”. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court also found that quashing the judgment after it had become final constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possession.     There being no public interest defence justifying that interference, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   The applicant was awarded 145,836 Russian roubles (RUR) (approximately EUR 4,313) in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Dacosta Silva v. Spain (no. 69966/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 The applicant, Carlos Dacosta Silva, is a Spanish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Valencia (Spain).   He is a member of the Civil Guard who, after being seconded to the Gijón force, had been on sick leave since 5 January 1998 when, learning that one of his relatives was seriously ill, and after informing the duty officer, left for his parents’ home, where he stayed from 16 to 24 February 1998.   On 20 March 1998 the applicant’s immediate superior imposed on him the disciplinary penalty of six days’ house arrest for being absent without leave. Appeals by the applicant against his superior’s order were all dismissed.   The applicant complained in particular that he had been deprived of his liberty on the basis of a decision taken by his superiors in the context of disciplinary proceedings. He alleged the violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   The Court took the view that the Spanish reservation regarding Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, which concerned the armed forces’ disciplinary rules, did not apply to the disciplinary rules of the Civil Guard and accordingly decided to examine the applicant’s complaints under those Articles.   It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 and that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6. As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court considered that there was no cause to make any award under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 8 Volokhy v. Ukraine (no. 23543/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicants, Olga Volokh and Mykhaylo Volokh, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1933 and 1961 respectively and live in Poltava (Ukraine).   On 6 August 1997 an order for interception and seizure of the postal and telegraphic correspondence of the applicants was issued when Olga Volokh’s son (Mykhaylo Volokh’s brother), who was under investigation for tax evasion, failed to appear for interrogation at the police station. The decision on interception of the applicants’ correspondence had been given in accordance with Article   187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No time-limit was fixed in the order and, as a result, the interception order remained valid for more than one year after the criminal proceedings against their relative had ended. The applicants unsuccessfully claimed for damages.   The applicants complained about the interception of their correspondence. They relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court concluded that the interference with the right to respect for correspondence was not “in accordance with the law” since Ukrainian law did not indicate with sufficient clarity the scope and conditions of exercise of the authorities’ discretionary power in the area under consideration and did not provide sufficient safeguards against abuse of that surveillance system.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 and awarded the applicants EUR 1,000, each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   No violation of Article 13 Di Pietro v. Italy (no. 73575/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Milazzo v. Italy (no. 77156/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Matthias and Others v. Italy (no. 35174/03) Perrella v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 15348/03)   In these four cases the applicants were all formerly the owners of land which the administrative authorities occupied with a view to its expropriation and on which they began building work. In the absence of any formal expropriation or compensation the applicants claimed damages for the illegal occupation of their land.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of the occupation of their land. In addition the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), in the di Pietro and Milazzo cases of the length of the related proceedings (more than 18 years for Ms di Pietro and nearly nine years for Mr   Milazzo), and in the Matthias and Others case of the unfairness of the proceedings.   The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in each of the cases and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1 in the Matthias and Others case. It further held that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings in the di Pietro and Milazzo cases. Lastly, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 13 in the di Pietro case.   The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 was not yet ready for decision as regards the violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As regards the other violations, the Court awarded Mrs di Pietro EUR 12,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses, and Mr   Milazzo EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kazartsev v. Russia (no. 26410/02) Tytar v. Russia (no. 21779/04) The applicants, Aleksey Dmitriyevich Kazartsev and Vladimir Dmitriyevich Tytar, are Russian nationals who were born in 1940 and 1954 respectively. Mr Kazartsev lives in Voronezh and Mr Tytar lives in Omsk (Russia).   They complained about the lengthy failure to enforce various judgments awarding them compensation, due to lack of State funds. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court observed that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for years, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded Mr Tytar RUR 183,502 (approximately EUR   5,426) for pecuniary damage and EUR 3,100 for non-pecuniary damage. The Court awarded Mr   Kazartsev EUR 3,900 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the excessive length of civil proceedings. Relying on Article 13, the applicants in Olenik v. Slovenia and Zorc v. Slovenia also claimed that they had had no effective remedy concerning their length-of-proceedings complaint.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kozlica v. Croatia (no. 29182/03) Sukobljević v. Croatia (no. 5129/03) Matica v. Romania (no. 19567/02) Kudinova v. Russia (no. 44374/04) Vladimir Nikitin v. Russia (no. 15969/02) Markoski v. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 22928/03)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Olenik v. Slovenia (no. 4225/02) Zorc v. Slovenia (no. 2792/02)   ***   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 Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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 European Convention on Human Rights.