CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 janvier 2009

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   54 22.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   One repetitive case [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bulves AD v. Bulgaria (application no. 3991/03) The applicant, “Bulves” AD, is a Bulgarian joint-stock company set up in 1996 with its registered office in Plovdiv. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, the applicant company complained in particular that the Bulgarian authorities had deprived it of the right to deduct the input VAT it had paid to its supplier, who had been late in complying with its own VAT reporting obligations. The applicant company also argued that VAT legislation in Bulgaria was discriminatory. The European Court of Human Rights, taking into account the timely and full discharge by the applicant company of its VAT reporting obligations, its inability to secure compliance by its supplier with its VAT reporting obligations and the fact that there had been no fraud in relation to the VAT system of which the applicant company had knowledge or the means to obtain such knowledge, found in particular that “Bulves” AD should not have been required to bear the full consequences of its supplier’s failure to discharge its VAT reporting obligations in timely fashion, and considered that that had amounted to an excessive individual burden on the applicant company. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and also held that no separate examination of the complaint under Article   14 taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 was necessary. The Court further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company, and awarded it 1,953   euros   (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR   2,377.80 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Dinchev v. Bulgaria (no. 23057/03) The applicant, Krum Iliev Dinchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Vidin (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 6   §   1 (right of access to a court), he complained about the discontinuation of criminal proceedings against an individual who had caused him bodily harm. The Court found in particular that the applicant had not had an effective access to a court for the examination of his civil ‑ party claim, and that that could not be redressed by the possibility of bringing a fresh action in the civil courts. The Court therefore held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and awarded Mr   Dinchev EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 75022/01) The applicant, Petyo Atanasov Popov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Vratsa (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that he had been beaten by police officers whilst in police custody in April 1996. He also complained of the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. Furthermore, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that neither he nor his counsel had been informed of the date of the High Court hearing in proceedings against him for armed robbery and attempted rape. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 in respect of ill-treatment, considering that it was impossible to establish whether the injuries the applicant had sustained corresponded to the necessary and proportionate use of force at the time of his arrest. The Court also held that there had been no violation of Article 3 as regards the failure of the investigation, which was mostly attributable to the applicant’s delay in lodging his complaint. The Court did find a violation of Article 6 § 1, in that the examination of the applicant’s case without him being present at the hearing was incompatible with the principle of equality of arms. It further held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Kaemena and Thöneböhn v. Germany (nos. 45749/06 and 51115/06) The applicants are two German nationals, Christiane Kaemena, who was born in 1967 and, Uwe-Karsten Thöneböhn, who was born in 1968. They are both currently detained in Germany, in Vechta and Celle, respectively. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained in particular about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against them on suspicion of murdering the first applicant’s husband. They further relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length – ten years and almost two months – of the criminal proceedings. It also found that, in the particular circumstances of their cases, the applicants had not had at their disposal an effective remedy capable of affording redress for a violation of the reasonable time requirement, in breach of Article 13. The Court awarded each applicant EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Borzhonov v. Russia (no. 18274/04) The applicant, Yevgeniy Borzhonov, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ulan-Ude (Buryatiya Republic). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him. He further relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 concerning the seizure and retention of his bus. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles   6   §   1 and 13 on account of the excessive length – approximately seven years – of the proceedings. The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the continued retention of the bus even after the annulment of the charging order. Mr   Borzhonov was awarded EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The Court further held that Russia should ensure, by appropriate means, that the bus in question be returned to the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Lotorevich v. Russia (no. 16048/06) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the State’s failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour in good time.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular under Article   6   §   1 about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. She also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Christensen v. Denmark (no. 247/07)     ***   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 Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 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)   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.