003-4687287-5686611

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 061 (2014)   04.03.2014   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber   judgments1 which are not final. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   The Court has also delivered today judgments in the cases of Grande Stevens and Others v. Italy (applications   nos. 18640/10, 18647/10, 18663/10, 18668/10 and 18698/10), Aslaner v. Turkey (no. 36073/04), and Dilipak and Karakaya   v. Turkey (nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05), for which separate press releases have been issued.   Duraliyski v. Bulgaria (application no. 45519/06)   The applicants are two brothers, Atanas Duraliyski and Nikolay Duraliyski, Bulgarian nationals who   were born in 1973 and 1983 respectively and live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). The case concerned civil   proceedings in which they had sought payment of an insurance policy. The applicants’ father, who in   had made them beneficiaries under his life insurance and accident insurance policies, died in   June 2004 following an allergic reaction to a wasp sting. The insurance company subsequently   informed the applicants that a wasp sting was not a risk covered by the accident insurance policy   and thus refused to pay out on their claim. In civil proceedings brought by the applicants, the first-   instance court found for them, but on appeal the Sofia City Court, in a final judgment of May 2006,   dismissed their claim. It stated in particular that the parties had produced no copy of the insurance   policy, without which it was unable to correctly establish the circumstances of the case. Relying in   particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the   applicants complained notably that they had been unable to make submissions concerning the   question of whether the insurance policy had been presented in court, as that argument had only   been introduced in the final judgment, and that the City Court had not been impartial and had not   reasoned its conclusion.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: 2,300 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 800 (costs and expenses)   Microintelect OOD v. Bulgaria (no. 34129/03)   The applicant company, Microintelect OOD, is a Bulgarian limited liability company with a registered   office in Sofia. The case concerned administrative-penal proceedings brought by the tax authorities   against two of the applicant company’s business partners, both of them sole traders, with whom it   had entered into contracts to jointly operate a billiards club and an electronic games club,   respectively. Under the contracts, Microintelect OOD was to supply the clubs with alcoholic   beverages. In 2002 the tax authorities carried out inspections at the clubs and found that the sole   traders were selling alcohol without the requisite licence. Subsequently the authorities imposed   penalties on the sole traders, which included the forfeiture of alcohol belonging to Microintelect   OOD. In judicial review proceedings brought by the sole traders, the courts – finding that   Microintelect OOD had no standing to intervene in the proceedings – eventually upheld the penal   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   orders in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection   of property) to the Convention, the applicant company complained that the tax authorities had   unjustifiably deprived it of its property and that it had not been allowed to take part in the judicial   review proceedings.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court dismissed the applicant company’s claim for pecuniary and non-   pecuniary damage, and awarded it EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses   Filiz v. Turkey (no. 28074/08)*   The applicant, Mehmet Şerif Filiz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1990 and lives in Mersin   (Turkey). The case concerned the length of his pre-trial detention, the reasons for its extension and   the lack of remedies against the decisions to prolong his detention. On 21 March 2007 the DTP, a   pro-Kurdish left-leaning party, organised festivities in Mersin. During that celebration a group of   demonstrators who were members of the PKK chanted slogans in favour of the PKK and Abdullah   Öcalan, unrolled banners and attacked the security forces. On the same day Mr Filiz was arrested   and placed in police custody. In April 2007 proceedings were brought against 20 persons, including   Mr Filiz. After 11 hearings, the assize court upheld Mr Filiz’s continued detention. Relying in   particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he alleged that the length of his pre-trial   detention had been excessive.   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Just satisfaction: The Court rejected the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. the United Kingdom   (no. 7552/09)   The applicant organisation, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is a religious organisation,   registered as a private unlimited company in the United Kingdom. It is part of the worldwide   Mormon Church. The case concerned its complaint of being denied an exemption from local   property taxes. In 2001 the church applied to have its temple in Preston, Lancashire, removed from a   list of premises liable to pay business tax, on the grounds that it was a "place of public religious   worship" which was entitled to exemption from that tax. While a first-instance court decision   granted the church’s claim, that decision was overturned in 2005. In a final decision of July 2008, the   House of Lords dismissed the church’s appeal, holding in particular that the temple was not to be   qualified as a "place of public religious worship", since access to the temple was restricted to a select   group of the most devout followers holding a special authorisation. The applicant organisation   complained in particular that the refusal to its temple of the exemption from business rates   amounted to discrimination on religious grounds, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of   discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion).   No violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9   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.   3