003-4644630-5624911

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 021 (2014)   23.01.2014   Chamber judgments concerning Slovenia and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber   judgments1, none of which is final. The judgments are available only in English.   The Court has also delivered today a judgment in the case of Montoya v. France (application no. 62170/10) for which a   separate press release has been issued.   W. v. Slovenia (application no. 24125/06)   The applicant, Ms W., is a Slovenian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Maribor (Slovenia).   The case concerned criminal proceedings against a group of men who had raped her in April 1990,   when she was 18 years old. Charges of rape, aiding and abetting rape and sexual assault,   respectively, were brought against ten men in September 1990. In November 1990 they were   acquitted, based on the findings, in particular, that Ms W. had not seriously resisted sexual   intercourse and that she had changed her testimony during the proceedings. On appeal, the second-   instance court quashed the judgment in April 1991, finding that the facts had been insufficiently   established, and remitted the case. Subsequently there were long delays in the proceedings, since   two of the defendants had left the country and could not be found. After the proceedings against   the two missing men had been severed into separate cases, six of the remaining defendants were   convicted, of rape and aggravated rape respectively, and sentenced to imprisonment for between   eight months and one year in a judgment of June 2002, eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in   July 2007. The missing defendants were eventually found and extradited to Slovenia in 2003 and   and they were convicted of aiding and abetting rape and of aggravated rape, respectively, and   both sentenced to imprisonment of eight months by judgments which became final in August 2004   and June 2006. Relying, in substance, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),   Ms W. complained in particular that the long delays in the criminal proceedings had been in breach   of the State’s obligation to effectively prosecute the criminal offences committed against her. While   she was awarded compensation at national level for the distress she suffered as a result of the   lengthy proceedings, she considered that the amount of 5,000 euros paid to her could not be   regarded as sufficient redress.   Violation of Article 3 (procedure)   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,800 in   respect of costs and expenses   East/West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine (no. 19336/04)   The applicant company, East/West Alliance Ltd., is an Irish company based in Dublin with a   representative office in Ukraine. The case concerned the seizure of 14 commercial airplanes owned   by the company in March 2001 in the context of criminal investigations in Ukraine against another   company which belonged to the same consortium as East/West Alliance. Several of the airplanes   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   were subsequently sold to third parties while the judicial proceedings concerning the title to those   airplanes were pending and the planes were impounded as an interim measure to secure the   parties’ claims. East/West Alliance complained in particular of a violation of its rights under Article 1   (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as a result of, among other events, the   seizure of the aircrafts, the subsequent sale and the damage to some of the planes, and the non-   enforcement of final judicial decisions ordering the return of the aeroplanes to the applicant   company. The company further relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention,   complaining that it had not had an effective remedy in Ukraine in respect of its complaints.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 8,000   in respect of 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 www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   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