003-2212826-2368641

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   18.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy, Poland, Slovakia and Turkey   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.     Revision Bajrami v. Albania (application no. 35853/04) The applicant, Agim Bajrami, was an ethnic Albanian from Kosovo who was born in 1964 and lived in Caralevë, in the municipality of Shtime (Kosovo). The Albanian Government asked for the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case (12 December 2006) to be revised because the applicant had died on 10 November 2006. The Court decided unanimously to revise that judgment as regards the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It held that the applicant’s heir or heirs should be paid the amounts he had originally been awarded, 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Marini v. Albania (no. 3738/02) The applicant, Vlash Marini, is an Albanian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Tirana. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about five sets of proceedings he had brought following a dispute with the Albanian Government over a joint-venture company they had set up in 1991 which specialised in the production of plastic materials. The Court held unanimously that there had been three violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) as regards: the applicant’s right of access to a court concerning his constitutional complaint; the non-enforcement of a final decision; and, the excessive length of the first and second sets of proceedings. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of the applicant’s length-of-proceedings complaint and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the applicant’s right of access to court in respect of a liquidation order and the excessive length of the third, fourth and fifth sets of proceedings. The applicant was awarded EUR 330,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Pejaković and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (nos. 337/04, 36022/04 and 45219/04) The applicants are three citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Čedomir Pejaković and Dragomir Kusić live in Bosnia and Herzegovina and were born in 1932 and 1944, respectively. Ružica Pejić lives in Belgium and was born in 1942. The case concerned the applicants’ complaints about the non-enforcement of domestic judgments ordering the release of foreign-currency savings they had deposited in banks in Sarajevo prior to the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Court found that, even though section 27 of the Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act 2006 had recently been amended, it appeared that those judgments had still not been enforced. The Court therefore held unanimously that, in all three cases, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR 10,739 to the first applicant, EUR 427,088 to the second applicant and EUR 259,009 to the third applicant. Each applicant was awarded EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 6 § 1 Rydz v. Poland (no. 13167/02) The applicant, Henryk Rydz, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Brzeg (Poland). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him following his arrest in May 1999 on suspicion of, in particular, gang rape. Ultimately, he was found guilty and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) or of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Abidin Şahin v. Turkey (no. 45559/04) The applicant, Abidin Şahin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey). The case concerned the authorities’ failure to pay a judgment debt in respect of pension benefits owed to the applicant. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that Turkey was to pay the applicant the judgment debt still owed to him, plus interest. The applicant was awarded EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Erkan Soylu v. Turkey (no. 74657/01) The applicant, Erkan Soylu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). Criminal proceedings were brought against him in 1996 on charges of belonging to an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), and manufacturing explosives. Those proceedings are still pending in the Turkish courts. The applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention (a total of four years and eight months) and of the lack of a remedy to have its lawfulness reviewed. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court reached the same findings as in cases raising similar issues under the Convention.   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Two violations of Article 8 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Violation of Article 13 Bertolini v. Italy (no. 14448/03) The case concerned restrictions imposed on the applicant after he was declared bankrupt.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Sevgili v. Turkey (no. 27402/03) In this case the applicant complained in particular of delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation that had been awarded to him.     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) Buonfardieci v. Italy (no. 39933/03) Aragosa v. Italy (no. 20191/03) Biszta v. Poland (no. 4922/02) Olesiński v. Poland (no. 12550/02) Olszewska v. Poland (no. 13024/05) Jakubička and Magyaricsová v. Slovakia (no. 16126/05) Španír v. Slovakia (no. 39139/05) Vičanová v. Slovakia (no. 3305/04) Weiss v. Slovakia (no. 28652/803)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Swat v. Poland (no. 13545/03)     ***   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.