003-6444432-8479686

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 241 (2019)   27.06.2019   Judgments and decisions of 27 June 2019   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 17 judgments1 and 47 decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 47 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Cosmos Maritime Trading and Shipping Agency v. Ukraine (application   no. 53427/09)   The applicant company, Cosmos Maritime and Foreign Trading Ltd., is a Turkish company with its   registered office in Istanbul (Turkey).   The case concerned the company’s efforts to have claims recognised in bankruptcy proceedings   against a Ukrainian State-owned shipping company, the Black Sea Shipping Company (“Blasco”).   Blasco was one of the largest shipping companies in the world until the late 1980s when it ran into   legal and financial difficulties.   In 2003 the applicant company lodged an application with the Ukrainian commercial courts seeking   recognition of a debt of over two million United States dollars owed to it by Blasco for services   provided to its vessels. Those claims were recognised in 2012.   However, that decision was quashed in 2013. The courts found that the applicant company and   other charterers had presented unsubstantiated bills to Blasco for vessel operating costs, which had   in fact been their responsibility.   In their appeals in those proceedings, the applicant company expressed concerns that the courts   were not playing an active role in protecting the creditors’ interests. They alleged in particular that   that could be explained by the fact that the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal were housed   in a building in Odessa that had been transferred from Blasco to the courts in 2005, while the   bankruptcy proceedings were pending. In that context, in 2013, the judge presiding over the   bankruptcy proceedings dismissed a request for her withdrawal from the case, ruling that she was   not affected by the transfer as she had only taken over the case much later, in 2011.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complained that the domestic courts which   had dealt with its case had lacked impartiality and that the proceedings concerning the recognition   of its claims had been too long. It also alleged that the failure to recognise its claims had breached its   rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to an impartial tribunal)   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Just satisfaction: 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 650 for costs and expenses   Svit Rozvag, TOV v. Ukraine (nos. 13290/11, 62600/12, and 49432/16)   The case concerned the ban on gambling introduced in Ukraine in 2009.   The applicants are two Ukrainian companies, Svit Rozvag, TOV, based in Kharkiv, and Igro-Bet, PP,   based in Lviv; and one Ukrainian national, Nataliya Stanko, born in 1975 and living in Loza of the   Irshavsky District, Zakarpattya Region (all in Ukraine). Two of the applicants operated gambling   businesses, while the third (Igro-Bet, PP), who had obtained a licence shortly prior to the ban, was   prevented from launching an actual business.   In response to a fire in May 2009 in a gambling establishment in Dnipro, killing nine people and   injuring eleven, Parliament passed into law a bill banning gambling altogether. Just prior to that total   ban, the Ministry of Finance had also suspended all gambling licences with immediate effect.   Parliament overrode a veto on the law by the President of Ukraine in June 2009, and it immediately   entered into force. All of the applicants’ gambling licences were revoked under the new law. They   lodged claims for compensation, which were all dismissed.   All the applicants relied in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to   complain about the revocation of their gambling licences without compensation. Ms Stanko also   complained under the same article about the suspension of her licence in May 2009.   Svit Rozvag, TOV and Ms Stanko also brought complaints under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing)   about the proceedings for compensation, alleging in particular that the domestic courts had failed to   comment on their arguments in support of their claims which had relied on the Convention and the   Strasbourg Court’s case-law.   No violation of Article 6 § 1 – in respect of Svit Rozvag, TOV   Ms Stanko’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 declared inadmissible   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in respect of Ms Stanko, on account of the suspension of   her licence   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – on account of the manner in which the applicants’ licences   were revoked   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just   satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It further awarded   EUR 300,000 to Svit Rozvag, TOV, EUR 58,500 to Ms Stanko, and EUR 135,000 to Igro-Bet, PP, in   respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR 17,000 to Svit Rozvag, TOV, EUR 2,200 to Ms Stanko, and   EUR 214 to Igro-Bet, PP, 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)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)   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