003-2166090-2320970

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   15.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Romania, Russia, Slovenia, the “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”and Ukraine   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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Prodanof and Others v. Romania (No. 1) (application no. 2739/02) The applicants, Nicolae Prodanof, Boris George Prodanof, Cleliana Prodanof and Christi Marina Prodanof, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1942, 1947, 1948 and 1945, respectively. Christi Marina Prodanof lives in Bucharest, and the three other applicants, who also have Brazilian nationality, live in São Paulo (Brazil).   In May 1998 the applicants brought proceedings in the Romanian courts for the recovery of land in Bucharest which had belonged to their aunt and had been expropriated by the State in 1974. In a judgment of 19 June 1998 Bucharest District Court granted their application and ordered the town council to return the land to them with unreserved rights of ownership and possession. There was no appeal and the judgment became final. After several attempts, the applicants only secured the return of their land on 25 February 2005.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about the State’s failure to enforce the final judgment in their favour.   The Court considered that the Romanian Government had failed to provide any valid justification for the authorities’ refusal to enforce the judgment in question until 25 February 2005, as a result of which the applicants had been deprived of their property for almost seven years. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded each applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 8 Benderskiy v. Ukraine (no. 22750/02) The applicant, Mykola Vasylyovych Benderskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Pervomaysk (Ukraine).   The applicant, who was suffering from cancer of the bladder, was operated on at the “Inter-regional Centre for Clinical Lymphatic Surgery”, a private limited company, in September 1998. The applicant alleged that a gauze compress had been left in his body during the operation. In September 1999 he brought proceedings against the Centre in the Ukrainian courts, seeking the termination of his contract for medical treatment and compensation for the bodily harm caused by the operation. A report by medical experts established, in particular, that the compress had most probably penetrated the applicant’s bladder during the operation. The report additionally stated that it could only have happened during the post-operative treatment at home if this had involved packing of the bladder. In a judgment of 6 July 2001 Mr Benderskiy’s claim was nevertheless dismissed as unproven. He appealed against the decision, complaining of an unfair and unreasonable assessment of the evidence, but was unsuccessful. He further criticised the lack of reasoning in the judicial decisions given in his case, pointing out that the Court of Appeal had failed to address nearly all of his arguments.   Mr Benderskiy relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court observed that only two hypotheses explaining the penetration of the compress had been discussed and considered by the medical experts and the courts: namely that it had taken place either during the operation or during the post-operative treatment at home. In his pleadings, the applicant had referred to statements taken from urologists who had treated him after his discharge from the Centre, and had requested the courts in particular to rule on whether any packing of the bladder had been carried out during the treatment at home. However, the courts neither granted that request nor commented in any way on the doctors’ statements. The Court considered that that argument was very important for the settlement of the dispute and that it thus required a specific and explicit response on the part of the courts. Accordingly, it considered that the Ukrainian authorities had failed to guarantee the applicant’s right to a fair trial and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Although it had found a procedural shortcoming, the Court observed that Ukrainian law afforded Mr Benderskiy the right to bring civil or criminal proceedings in connection with the situation in question and thus held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8. The Court further held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint separately under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 90 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 Belasin v. Romania (no. 15402/04) In this case, the applicants complained about the cancellation of a final judicial decision in their favour, in a dispute concerning the restitution of a nationalised building. The Court found the above-mentioned violations.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Subocheva v. Russia (no. 2245/05) Orel v. Ukraine (no. 39924/02) Sokolova v. Ukraine (no. 29468/04) The Court found the above violations in these cases concerning the failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or not at all. The Court considered it unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in the case of Sokolova.     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) Ivanovska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 10541/03) Rudysh v. Ukraine (no. 18957/03) Yavorska v. Ukraine (no. 42207/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Jelenc v. Slovenia (no. 37166/02) Lednik v. Slovenia (no. 37062/02) Pavlovič v. Slovenia (no. 37006/02) Ramšak v. Slovenia (no. 33584/02) Chuyan v. Ukraine (no. 24131/03) Fedorchuk v. Ukraine (no. 20746/05)     ***   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.