003-3462032-3896167

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 193   08.03.2011   Judgments1 concerning Albania, Montenegro, Romania, Spain   and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven   judgments.   Repetitive cases2 and one length-of-proceedings case, 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 (*).   Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria (no. 12739/05)   The applicant, Koprinka Petkova Goranova-Karaeneva, is a Bulgarian national who was   born in 1952 and lives in Montana (Bulgaria). A former neurologist at Montana Regional   Hospital, she was occasionally called upon to act as a court-appointed expert. The case   concerned her complaint about the tapping of her telephone conversations in January   in the context of criminal proceedings brought against her for bribe-taking. She   was notably accused of offering to corroborate – in exchange for money – a former   patient’s civil claim against the Montana hospital. She was found guilty as charged in   November 2003 and given a three-year suspended prison sentence, later reduced on   appeal to one-and-a-half years. She relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and   family life, the home and correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the   European Convention on Human Rights.   No violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: finding of a violation sufficient for non-pecuniary damage and 1,100   euros (EUR) for costs and expenses   The Arges College of Legal Advisers v. Romania (application   no. 2162/05)   The applicant is an association of legal advisers from Piteşti (Argeş County, Romania)   whose registration was refused by the domestic courts in October 2004. Notably, the   courts refused the registration as one of the aims set down in the association’s statute   (the protection and promotion of the rights of individuals in their relation with public   authorities) led them to believe that it wanted to practise activities similar to those of   lawyers, which, under domestic law, was forbidden outside the Romanian Bar   Association. Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month   period following a judgment’s 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.       the Convention, the applicant complained about this refusal to register it as an   association.   Violation of Article 11   Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant. The Court drew attention to the fact   that the situation existing before the above breach of the Convention could be restored   by allowing the applicant association, under the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, to   address the national courts with an extraordinary appeal.   Beristain Ukar v. Spain (no. 40351/05)*   The applicant, Aritz Beristain Ukar, is a Spanish national who was born in 1980 and lives   in Hernani (Spain). In 2002 he was arrested in San Sebastián on suspicion of having   taken part in violent clashes in the city. Relying mainly on Article 3 (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment), he submitted that he had been ill-treated during his   arrest and while he had been detained for five days in San Sebastián and Madrid.   No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 euros (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (costs   and expenses)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Delvina v. Albania (no. 49106/06)   Eltari v. Albania (no. 16530/06)   These cases concerned the non-enforcement of final court decisions in the applicants’   favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an   effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In both cases   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Emiroğlu v. Turkey (no. 40795/05)*   This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the authorities had expropriated his   property without paying compensation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Kiziroğlu v. Turkey (no. 52154/07)   This case concerned a navy captain’s complaint that he had been unable to access the   classified documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military   Administrative Court in proceedings in which he had sought the annulment of his   appointment to a different post. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length   of administrative proceedings concerning expropriation of their house and land.   Živaljević v. Montenegro (no. 17229/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   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