EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

030

17.1.2008

Press release issued by the Registrar

Chamber judgments concerning
Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Norway, Romania, Russia and Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18 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)

Abbasov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 24271/05)

The applicant, Elchin Abbasov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1964 and lives in Russia. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he had not been informed about the hearing of his cassation appeal before the Supreme Court and that, therefore, he could not be present at the hearing. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded M. Abbasov 1,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Violation of Article 11

Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan (no. 4439/04)

The applicant, Ismayil Ismayilov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1947 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the significant delays in the state registration of an association named “Humanity and Environment”, of which he was a founder. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention and awarded Mr Ismayilov EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

Violation of Article 13

Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria (no. 61596/00)

The applicants are two Bulgarian nationals. Ivan Atanasov was born in 1957 and lives in Pazardzhik, and his father-in-law, Petar Ovcharov, was born in 1936 and lives in Aleko Konstantinovo. The case concerned the applicants’ complaints about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them on charges of fraud and malfeasance, and that their tractor and hunting rifles had been unlawfully seized by the police. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court awarded each applicant EUR 5,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

Violation of Article 10

Vasilakis v. Greece (no. 25145/05)

The applicant, Emmanouil Vasilakis, is a Greek national and a journalist. In 1999 he published a series of articles criticising members of “Network 21”, a political association of which certain members had provided assistance to Abdullah Öcalan during his short stay in Greece in February 1999. Following publication of those articles a number of members of “Network 21” individually sued the applicant in the civil courts, claiming damages for defamation and insults. The total amount claimed exceeded two billion drachmas (some six million euros). D.K. and F.K., who were lawyers and members of “Network 21”, brought a number of actions against the applicant, acting either in their own names or on behalf of other members of the association. In November 1999 the applicant wrote to the Chairman of the Athens Bar Association, complaining about the conduct of D.K. and F.K. and describing it as “in breach of the lawyers’ code of ethics”. D.K. again sued the applicant in the civil courts for defamation and insults. The domestic courts ordered the applicant to pay the claimant EUR 3,000 in damages.

The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses (The judgment is available only in French.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Prodan v. Romania (no. 26071/04)

The applicant, Anica Prodan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Curtişoara (Romania). She alleged that the annulment of a final judgment in which she had been granted salary entitlements had breached the principle of legal certainty. The Court held unanimously 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) and awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 for pecuniary damage, EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia (no. 14810/02)

The applicant, Ryakib Biryukov, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Togliatti (Russia). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the reasoned judgment in his case, which concerned proceedings for damages against a hospital for malpractice, had not been “pronounced publicly”. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) in that the public had had no access to the reasoned judgment and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Repetitive cases

The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.

Just satisfaction

Serrilli v. Italy (nos. 77823/01, 77827/01 and 77829/01)

De Pascale v. Italy (no. 71175/01)

These cases concerned unlawful interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Court awarded, in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 300,000 to Mrs De Pascale and EUR 200,000 to the applicants in the Serrilli case.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Cernat v. Romania (no. 32286/03)

Tudor v. Romania (no. 29035/05)

The applicants complained about their inability to recover possession of buildings that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Aleksentseva and Others v. Russia (nos. 75025/01, 75026/01, 75028/01, 75029/01, 75031/01, 75033/01, 75034/01, 75036/01, 76386/01, 77049/01, 77051/01, 77052/01, 77053/01, 3999/02, 5314/02, 5384/02, 5388/02, 5419/02, and 8192/02)

Smorodinova v. Russia (no. 37647/04)

Kopylovich and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 1421/03, 11915/06, 11922/06 and 11924/06)

Lopatyuk and Others v. Ukraine (121 applications)

The Court found the above violations in these cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or not at all. The Court held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in the case of Kopylovich.

Length-of-proceedings cases

In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

Violation of Article 13

Rahimova v. Azerbaijan (no. 21674/05)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

Kavalovi v. Bulgaria (no. 74487/01)

Atanasiu v. Romania (no. 15204/02)

(1st applicant) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

A. and E. Riis v. Norway (No. 2) (no. 16468/05)

***

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)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)
Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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.

[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.