003-2941436-3252449

916 03.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Azerbaijan and Bulgaria   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).     Humbatov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 13652/06) Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 50187/06) The applicants, Nail Humbatov and Yadigar Mirzayev, are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1941 and 1952 respectively and live in Baku. They both complained about the non-enforcement of judgments in their favour, resulting in a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgments by the domestic courts, granted Mr Humbatov’s company the right to use a plot of land and confirmed Mr Mirzayev’s status as the lawful tenant of a flat occupied by another family. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: enforcement of the judgments in favour of the applicants within three months   Aliykov v. Bulgaria (no. 333/04)* The applicant, Tefik Cevik Aliykov, is a Bulgarian and Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Ankara. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention he complained of his conviction in absentia – during proceedings against him following his arrest for drink driving – and of the refusal of the Supreme Court of Cassation to reopen the case. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 1,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,100 (costs and expenses)   Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 18967/03)* The applicants are eight Bulgarian nationals who live in Bulgaria. They were born respectively in 1921, 1928, 1946, 1970, 1944, 1949, 1962 and 1963 and live in Blagoevgrad and Sofia. They are the heirs of the owner of large tracts of land, who died in 1945. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained of the failure to execute a final judgment in their favour restoring their ownership of more than 100 hectares of farmland which was collectivised during the communist era. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date / EUR 3,542, jointly (costs and expenses)     ***   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.