issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 021 (2014)
23.01.2014
Chamber judgments concerning Slovenia and Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber
judgments1, none of which is final. The judgments are available only in English.
The Court has also delivered today a judgment in the case of Montoya v. France (application no. 62170/10) for which a
separate press release has been issued.
W. v. Slovenia (application no. 24125/06)
The applicant, Ms W., is a Slovenian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Maribor (Slovenia).
The case concerned criminal proceedings against a group of men who had raped her in April 1990,
when she was 18 years old. Charges of rape, aiding and abetting rape and sexual assault,
respectively, were brought against ten men in September 1990. In November 1990 they were
acquitted, based on the findings, in particular, that Ms W. had not seriously resisted sexual
intercourse and that she had changed her testimony during the proceedings. On appeal, the second-
instance court quashed the judgment in April 1991, finding that the facts had been insufficiently
established, and remitted the case. Subsequently there were long delays in the proceedings, since
two of the defendants had left the country and could not be found. After the proceedings against
the two missing men had been severed into separate cases, six of the remaining defendants were
convicted, of rape and aggravated rape respectively, and sentenced to imprisonment for between
eight months and one year in a judgment of June 2002, eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in
July 2007. The missing defendants were eventually found and extradited to Slovenia in 2003 and
2004 and they were convicted of aiding and abetting rape and of aggravated rape, respectively, and
both sentenced to imprisonment of eight months by judgments which became final in August 2004
and June 2006. Relying, in substance, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),
Ms W. complained in particular that the long delays in the criminal proceedings had been in breach
of the State’s obligation to effectively prosecute the criminal offences committed against her. While
she was awarded compensation at national level for the distress she suffered as a result of the
lengthy proceedings, she considered that the amount of 5,000 euros paid to her could not be
regarded as sufficient redress.
Violation of Article 3 (procedure)
Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,800 in
respect of costs and expenses
East/West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine (no. 19336/04)
The applicant company, East/West Alliance Ltd., is an Irish company based in Dublin with a
representative office in Ukraine. The case concerned the seizure of 14 commercial airplanes owned
by the company in March 2001 in the context of criminal investigations in Ukraine against another
company which belonged to the same consortium as East/West Alliance. Several of the airplanes
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s
delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five
judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
