003-2980026-3283052

8 07.01.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 20 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   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.     Maxim Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (application no. 36552/03)* The applicant, Maxim Iordanov Dimitrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Varna (Bulgaria). 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 criminal proceedings against him in a fraud case had been excessive in length. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 1,200 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Sashov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 14383/03)* The applicants, Trayan Zhorov Sashov, Krum Sotirov Yankov and Zdravko Alexandrov Simeonov, are three Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1977, 1978 and 1980 respectively and live in Sofia. They belong to the Roma ethnic and cultural group. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complained of police brutality during their arrest in 2001 (on suspicion of stealing metals) and of the failure of the State authorities to institute an effective criminal investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,500 (costs and expenses)   Stoyan Mitev v. Bulgaria (no. 60922/00) The applicant, Stoyan Mitev, was a Bulgarian national who was born in 1934. Following his death in 2001, his son expressed the wish to continue the application on behalf of his father. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained that his lengthy detention for a murder he had committed in 1997, despite his constantly deteriorating medical condition, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. No violation of Article 3   Zvezdev v. Bulgaria (no. 47719/07)* The applicant, Mr Alexander Dimitrov Zvezdev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Sofia. Relying in particular on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), he complained that after his arrest in 2007 for issuing threats using a weapon, he had not been brought “promptly” before a judge. He further alleged that he had had no possibility of challenging the lawfulness of his detention. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Just satisfaction: EUR 4,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,790 (costs and expenses)   Onoufriou v. Cyprus (no. 24407/04) The applicant, Andreas Onoufriou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1951 and is currently detained in Nicosia Central Prison for murder. In September 2003, when he did not return to prison after a 24-hour leave he was granted, he was arrested and placed in solitary confinement for 47 days. Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 8 (right to private or family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained of the conditions in which he had been detained during that period, of the prohibition on family visits during his period in solitary confinement and of the surveillance of his correspondence. He also alleged that he had had no effective remedy to challenge all the above. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 8 (private and family life, and correspondence) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Dimopoulos v. Greece (no. 34198/07)* The applicant, Konstantinos Dimopoulos, is a Greek national who was born in 1925 and lives in Athens. When working as a plumber for a company that owned a hotel complex, he brought proceedings against his employer in respect of overdue salary and allowances. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he alleged that the dismissal of his appeal on points of law in those proceedings had breached his right of access to a court. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Aribaud v. Luxembourg (no. 41923/06)* The applicant, Mr Pierre-Olivier Aribaud, is a French national who was born in 1962. According to the information in the case file, he is currently in Gradignan Prison (France). Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he complained about several periods of detention in the context of different sets of criminal proceedings against him. No violation of Article 5 § 1 (f)   Jovanoski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 31731/03) The applicant, Krste Jovanoski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Gorno Lakocerej (Macedonia). He complained of the non-enforcement of his claim against a Croatian company for payment of a debt, originating from the period before the dissolution of former Yugoslavia, following a long period of inaction by the Macedonian courts and the eventual destruction of the case-files. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 500 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bachvarovi v. Bulgaria (no. 24186/04) (1st applicant) Georgievi v. Bulgaria (no. 10913/04) (1st and 2nd applicants) Kayriakovi v. Bulgaria (no. 30945/04) Parvanov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 74787/01) These cases concerned the applicants' complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of having been deprived of their property arbitrarily, without adequate compensation.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Basarba OOD v. Bulgaria (no. 77660/01)   Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 69855/01) These cases concerned the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of having been deprived of their property as a result of the non-enforcement of final judicial decisions in their favour.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the cases of Karokis and Mageiras the applicants also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Ivanovi v. Bulgaria (no. 14226/04) Gargasoulas v. Greece (no. 51500/07)* Pikoula and Others v. Greece (no. 1545/08)*   Six violations of Article 6 § 1 Von Koester v. Germany (No. 1) (no. 40009/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Karokis v. Greece (no. 17461/08)* Mageiras v. Greece (no. 9893/08)*     ***   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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.