CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 avril 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   284 2.4.2009   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 15   Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   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.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Belev v. Bulgaria (application nos. 16354/02, 16485/02, 16878/02, 16885/02, 16886/02, 16889/02, 17333/02, 17340/02, 17344/02, 17613/02, 17725/02, 17726/02, 18410/02, 18413/02, 18414/02, 18416/02, 21023/02, 21024/02, 21027/02, 21029/02, 21030/02, 21033/02, 21038/02, 21052/02, 21071/02, 21284/02, 21378/02, 21800/02, 22430/02, 22433/02, 26478/02, 26498/02, 31049/02, 31333/02, 31518/02, 37816/02, 42567/02, 43529/02, 758/03, 3461/03 and 11219/03) The applicants are 42 Bulgarian nationals, former employees of the Plama refinery in Pleven (Bulgaria) which went into administration before being wound up in 1999. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained of the difficulties they had faced in obtaining enforcement of final judgments in their favour against their former employer.   The European Court of Human Rights concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the delay in enforcing recovery of the applicants’ debts, the result of a series of actions and omissions by the public authorities in the enforcement proceedings brought by the applicants. It held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   13. The Court awarded each applicant 2,300   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and various amounts in respect of pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, all of which appear in the table appended to the judgment. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 Gavril Georgiev v. Bulgaria (no. 31211/03) The applicant, Gavril Branimirov Georgiev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Popitsa (Bulgaria). At the relevant time he was performing his military service. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) Mr Georgiev complained of a disciplinary penalty of four days imposed by the commanding officer of his regiment for beating another soldier.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1, on the ground that the detention had not been ordered by bodies which had jurisdiction to do so, but by the regiment’s commanding officer, and also that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   4 in that the applicant had had no remedies whereby he could contest the lawfulness of the detention order. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Gikas v. Greece (no. 26914/07) The applicants, Panagiotis Gikas and Georgios Gikas, are Greek nationals who live in Amaroussio and Mandra (Greece) respectively. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complained of the administrative authorities’ refusal to comply with a decision by the administrative court concerning their land.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 on account of the duration of the restriction on use of the applicants’ land, the authorities’ tardiness in complying with an unambiguous judgment and the absence of a remedy whereby the applicants could oblige the administrative authorities to comply. The applicants had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction within the deadline fixed by the Court. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kallergis v. Greece (no. 37349/07) The applicant, Georgios Kallergis, is a Greek national who was born in 1975 and lives in Rethymnon (Crete). He was sentenced in 2006 to three years’ imprisonment, suspended, and a fine of EUR   15,000 for destroying antiquities. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr   Kallergis complained that the decision to declare his appeal on points of law inadmissible constituted refusal of access to a court.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive formalism displayed by the Court of Cassation, which had resulted in the applicant’s appeal on points of law being declared inadmissible. The applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction within the deadline fixed by the Court. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kola v. Greece (no. 1483/07) The applicant, Eduart Kola, is an Albanian national who was born in 1953 and is currently imprisoned in Corfu. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the excessive length of proceedings against him after he was arrested at the Greece-Albania border in possession of 1,923   kilos of cannabis.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length – approximately six years and two months, of which almost four years for the procedure on appeal – of the criminal proceedings and awarded the applicant EUR   3,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 10 Kydonis v. Greece (no. 24444/07) The applicant, Konstantinos Kydonis, is a Greek national who was born in 1948 and lives on the island of Chios (Greece). He is a journalist and publisher of the weekly newspaper Transparence de Chios . Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complained about his criminal conviction for defamation after he published an article in 2003 criticising the practices of a politician.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   10, in the absence of proportionality between the restriction imposed on the applicant’s freedom of expression and the legitimate aim pursed by the authorities, namely the protection of the politician’s reputation. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   1,746.58 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kravchenko v. Russia (no. 34615/02) Kuzmina v. Russia (no. 15242/04) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicants by way of supervisory review.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicants in the cases of Vassiliadis and Vegleris and Bratsas also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court declared inadmissible the remainder of the applications in the cases of Mantzos and Others and Vassiliadis .   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bekiari and Others v. Greece (no. 28264/07) Gogias v. Greece (no. 26421/07) Kondyli and Others v. Greece (no. 35812/07) Konstantinidou and Others v. Greece (no. 29529/07) Mantzos and Others v. Greece (no. 16630/07) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Vassiliadis v. Greece (no. 32086/06) Vegleris and Bratsas v. Greece (no. 17114/07)     ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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.