003-3553282-4015877

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 021 (2011)   26.05.2011   Judgments1 concerning the Czech Republic and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two   judgments which are available only in English.   Golha v. the Czech Republic (application no. 7051/06)   The applicant, Vojtěch Golha, is a Czech national who was born in 1937 and lives in   Stochov (Czech Republic). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a   reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, Mr Golha complained about the excessive length of   proceedings brought by his former wife for the division of matrimonial property.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   No violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: 2,100 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Doroshenko v. Ukraine (no. 1328/04)   The applicant, Oleg Doroshenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1974 and lives   in Lugansk Region (Ukraine). Mr Doroshenko had criminal proceedings brought against   him for large-scale tax evasion in May 2001 for which he was convicted as charged in   June 2007 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. That conviction was upheld on   appeal in December 2008. He complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within   a reasonable time) of the Convention, about the excessive length of those criminal   proceedings against him. Also relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of   movement), he alleged that the undertaking he had given in June 2001 not to abscond   during those proceedings still remained in force.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,200 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 74 (costs and   expenses)   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.   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   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | 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)   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.   2