issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 061 (2014)

04.03.2014

Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Turkey and the United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber

judgments¹which are not final. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).

The Court has also delivered today judgments in the cases of Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy (applications

nos. 18640/10, 18647/10, 18663/10, 18668/10 and 18698/10), Aslaner v. Turkey (no. 36073/04), and Dilipak and Karakaya

v. Turkey (nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05), for which separate press releases have been issued.

Duraliyski v. Bulgaria (application no. 45519/06)

The applicants are two brothers, Atanas Duraliyski and Nikolay Duraliyski, Bulgarian nationals who

were born in 1973 and 1983 respectively and live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). The case concerned civil

proceedings in which they had sought payment of an insurance policy. The applicants’ father, who in

2003 had made them beneficiaries under his life insurance and accident insurance policies, died in

June 2004 following an allergic reaction to a wasp sting. The insurance company subsequently

informed the applicants that a wasp sting was not a risk covered by the accident insurance policy

and thus refused to pay out on their claim. In civil proceedings brought by the applicants, the first-

instance court found for them, but on appeal the Sofia City Court, in a final judgment of May 2006,

dismissed their claim. It stated in particular that the parties had produced no copy of the insurance

policy, without which it was unable to correctly establish the circumstances of the case. Relying in

particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the

applicants complained notably that they had been unable to make submissions concerning the

question of whether the insurance policy had been presented in court, as that argument had only

been introduced in the final judgment, and that the City Court had not been impartial and had not

reasoned its conclusion.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: 2,300 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 800 (costs and expenses)

Microintelect OOD v. Bulgaria (no. 34129/03)

The applicant company, Microintelect OOD, is a Bulgarian limited liability company with a registered

office in Sofia. The case concerned administrative-penal proceedings brought by the tax authorities

against two of the applicant company’s business partners, both of them sole traders, with whom it

had entered into contracts to jointly operate a billiards club and an electronic games club,

respectively. Under the contracts, Microintelect OOD was to supply the clubs with alcoholic

beverages. In 2002 the tax authorities carried out inspections at the clubs and found that the sole

traders were selling alcohol without the requisite licence. Subsequently the authorities imposed

penalties on the sole traders, which included the forfeiture of alcohol belonging to Microintelect

OOD. In judicial review proceedings brought by the sole traders, the courts – finding that

Microintelect OOD had no standing to intervene in the proceedings – eventually upheld the penal

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

orders in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection

of property) to the Convention, the applicant company complained that the tax authorities had

unjustifiably deprived it of its property and that it had not been allowed to take part in the judicial

review proceedings.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: The Court dismissed the applicant company’s claim for pecuniary and non-

pecuniary damage, and awarded it EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses

Filiz v. Turkey (no. 28074/08)*

The applicant, Mehmet Şerif Filiz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1990 and lives in Mersin

(Turkey). The case concerned the length of his pre-trial detention, the reasons for its extension and

the lack of remedies against the decisions to prolong his detention. On 21 March 2007 the DTP, a

pro-Kurdish left-leaning party, organised festivities in Mersin. During that celebration a group of

demonstrators who were members of the PKK chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and Abdullah

Öcalan, unrolled banners and attacked the security forces. On the same day Mr Filiz was arrested

and placed in police custody. In April 2007 proceedings were brought against 20 persons, including

Mr Filiz. After 11 hearings, the assize court upheld Mr Filiz’s continued detention. Relying in

particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he alleged that the length of his pre-trial

detention had been excessive.

Violation of Article 5 § 3

Just satisfaction: The Court rejected the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. the United Kingdom

(no. 7552/09)

The applicant organisation, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is a religious organisation,

registered as a private unlimited company in the United Kingdom. It is part of the worldwide

Mormon Church. The case concerned its complaint of being denied an exemption from local

property taxes. In 2001 the church applied to have its temple in Preston, Lancashire, removed from a

list of premises liable to pay business tax, on the grounds that it was a "place of public religious

worship" which was entitled to exemption from that tax. While a first-instance court decision

granted the church’s claim, that decision was overturned in 2005. In a final decision of July 2008, the

House of Lords dismissed the church’s appeal, holding in particular that the temple was not to be

qualified as a "place of public religious worship", since access to the temple was restricted to a select

group of the most devout followers holding a special authorisation. The applicant organisation

complained in particular that the refusal to its temple of the exemption from business rates

amounted to discrimination on religious grounds, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of

discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion).

No violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,

judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive

the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter

@ECHR_Press.

Press contacts

echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08