003-3449120-3878931

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 161   24.02.2011   Judgments1 concerning Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,   “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten   judgments.   Repetitive cases2 and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding   indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. The judgments available only in   French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. v. the Czech Republic (application   nos. 33908/04, 7937/05, 25249/05, 29402/05 and 33571/06)   The applicant is a limited liability company incorporated under Czech law which, based in   Prague, dealt in ferrous alloys. The cases concerned the applicant company’s complaint   about the seizure of its assets in the context of criminal proceedings brought against its   former manager for tax evasion. It relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of   property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. Further relying on Article 6 §1   (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, it also complained in particular about the   unfairness of the proceedings concerning its seizure before the Constitutional Court as   the latter did not communicate to it the observations of the prosecution.   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (in case n° 33571/06)   Just satisfaction:   -non-pecuniary damage: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction   -costs and expenses: 1,500 euros (EUR)   Čaminski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   (no. 1194/04)   The applicant, Aleksandar Čaminski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1956 and   lives in Slovenj Gradec (Slovenia). A civil party to criminal proceedings brought against   five people who were accused of causing him grievous bodily harm, Mr Čaminski   complained about the excessive length of those proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1   (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and right of access to a court).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month   period following their delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,   judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the   Convention.       Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Čangov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 14419/03)   The case concerned eight sets of proceedings and their length or non-enforcement of   final judgments. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   (Fourth set of proceedings) Violation of Article 6 § 1   Shipkov v. Bulgaria (no. 26483/04)*   This case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his detention   pending trial on charges of possessing and transporting a large quantity of drugs. He   relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Violation of Article 5 § 3 (concerning the applicant’s detention after 25 October   2001)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length   of legal proceedings.   Criminal   Delov v. Bulgaria (no. 30949/04)   Dinucci v. Bulgaria (no. 11486/04)   Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 4551/05)   Kanchev v. Bulgaria (no. 16850/04)   These cases concerned in particular the applicants’ complaints concerning the excessive   length of criminal proceedings brought against them for robbery, unlawful possession of   firearms and murder (first case), aggravated fraud (second case), theft (third case) and   attempted theft (fourth case).   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 – first and fourth cases   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – second and third cases   Two violations of Article 13 – fourth case   Violation of Article 13 – third case   Non-criminal   Antoaneta Ivanova v. Bulgaria (no. 28899/04)*   Volovik c. Ukraine (no. 17446/06)*   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – both cases   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 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.   3