003-4010927-4673525

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 286 (2012)   05.07.2012   Judgments concerning Bulgaria, France, Poland and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five   judgments, of which two (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final. The others   are Chamber judgments1 and are not final.   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 in French are   indicated with an asterisk (*).   Just satisfaction   Association Les Témoins de Jehovah v. France (application   no. 8916/05)*   The applicant is the French association “Les Témoins de Jéhovah”. By a judgment of 30   June 2011 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of   thought, conscience and religion) concerning the taxation of hand-to-hand gifts received   by the association between 1993 and 1996. Today’s judgment concerned the question of   just satisfaction (Article 41).   The Court held that France is to reimburse the applicant association 4,590,295 euros   (EUR) for the taxes unduly paid and EUR 55,000 for costs and expenses.   Globa v. Ukraine (no. 15729/07)   The applicant, Ivan Globa, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in   Kulikove (Poltava Region, Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial   within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of proceedings in a   dispute over tenancy of a flat to which he had been entitled as an employee of a farming   collective and that the resulting final judgment in his favour of March 1999 had never   been enforced.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage).   Golovan v. Ukraine (no. 41716/06)   The applicants, Igor and Iryna Golovan, husband and wife, are Ukrainian nationals who   were born in 1968 and 1965 respectively and live in Donetsk (Ukraine). Igor Golovan is   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.   a practising lawyer. The case concerned the couple’s complaint about a search carried   out in their flat, which Igor Golovan used as his office, in May 2005 and the seizure of   documents concerning one of his clients who had been investigated for tax evasion and   forgery. They relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home)   and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 8 - in respect of Igor Golovan   Violation of Article 13 - in respect of Igor Golovan   Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Szubert v. Poland (no. 22183/06)   Found guilty of manslaughter in June 2005, the applicant complained that the legal-aid   lawyer assigned to his case had refused to draft a cassation appeal. He relied on Article 6   §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to   a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal)   proceedings.   Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 41140/05)   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   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   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)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   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