003-2714398-2974210

361 30.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven 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.     Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Roubies v. Greece (application no. 22525/07) The applicant, Mr Nikolaos Roubies, is a Greek national who lives in Neoi Poroi Pierias. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that the length of proceedings in which he had sought to recover the reserved portion of an estate to which he believed he was entitled had been excessive, and that certain grounds of his appeal to the Court of Cassation had been dismissed for purely formal reasons. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings (14 years) and the infringement of the right of access to a court. The applicant was awarded 20,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Tsotsos v. Greece (no. 25109/07) The applicant, Mr Konstantinos Tsotsos, is a Greek national who was born in 1964 and lives in Chalkida. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 3 (d) (right to have witnesses examined), he complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him for reckless arson and the fact that he had been convicted on the strength of witness statements. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings (seven years and seven months) and of Article 6 § 3 (d). It held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the allegedly insufficient reasoning of the domestic courts’ decisions. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Blinov and Blinova v. Russia (no. 5950/04) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the prolonged non-enforcement of a judgment in the applicants’ favour and its quashing by way of supervisory review.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Kontogouris, the Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Kontogouris v. Greece (no. 38463/07) Nikolopoulou v. Greece (no. 54581/07) Papathanasis v. Greece (no. 46064/07) Gasanova v. Russia (no. 23310/04)     ***   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.