003-2674484-2932409

254 26.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Germany and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which are final[1].   One repetitive case[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 (length) Violation of Article 13 Valentin Ivanov v. Bulgaria (application no. 76942/01) The applicant, Valentin Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Ivanov complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for, among other offences, aggravated murder. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length, almost eight years and two months, of the criminal proceedings against him. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, as no remedy existed at the time in Bulgarian law that could have prevented the excessive length of the proceedings or provided adequate redress for it. The Court awarded the applicant 600 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Valentin v. Denmark (no. 26461/06) The applicant, James Valentin, is a Danish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Copenhagen. He was a partner in a banking and stock-broking firm which went bankrupt in 1988. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Valentin complained in particular about the excessive length of the bankruptcy proceedings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length, 17 years and four months, of the proceedings. It further held that there had been a violation of Article 13, as Danish law at the time had not provided a remedy in respect of complaints related to length of bankruptcy court proceedings. Finally, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because Mr Valentin had been deprived of the possibility to administer his assets for more than 17 years. The applicant was awarded EUR 16,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Yelizarov v. Russia (no. 36551/07) The applicant, Dmitriy Yelizarov, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. On his way to court to attend a hearing about the Russian authorities’ refusal to register the National Bolshevik Party, Mr Yelizarov got involved in a fight outside the court building. He was arrested in April 2007 and charged with participating in mass disorders, assault and battery. In March 2008 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention pending trial. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length, 1 year, of Mr Yelizarov’s detention and awarded him EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It dismissed his complaint concerning the unlawfulness of his detention. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Nikolenko v. Russia (no. 38103/04) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the quashing, by way of supervisory review, of a final judgment in favour of Ms Nikolenko.     Length-of-proceedings cases   The Court found the violations listed below in the following cases, in which the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicant in the case of Medić also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Petko Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 19207/04) Deiwick v. Germany (no. 7369/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Medić v. Croatia (no. 49916/07)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Vaas v. Germany (no. 20271/05)     ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.