EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

486

5.7.2007

Press release issued by the Registrar

Chamber judgments concerning

Croatia, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Russia,

“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and the Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 29 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .

Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

Lukavica v. Croatia (application no. 39810/04) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The applicant, Ljiljana Lukavica, is a Croatian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Jastrebarsko (Croatia).

In February 1994 Croatian police authorities impounded the applicant's vehicle suspecting that it had been stolen. On 23 June 1994 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the State seeking recovery of the vehicle or, alternatively, pecuniary damages. Ultimately, on 11 March 2004 the parties reached an in-court settlement whereby the State was to return the vehicle to the applicant, pay her compensation and cover the costs of the proceedings with interest. The State has not yet returned the applicant’s car.

Relying on, in particular, Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings and that she had been unable to use her vehicle for a prolonged period of time.

The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and awarded the applicant 4,800 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. The Court further held that the State should secure within three months the enforcement of the in-court settlement of 11 March 2004. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

Lionarakis v. Greece (no. 1131/05) Violation of Article 10

The applicant, Nikitas Lionarakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1950 and lives in Athens.

At the relevant time the applicant was the presenter and coordinator of a radio programme broadcast live by the Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation. On 24 March 1999 he invited the journalist E.V. to debate various aspects of Greek foreign policy. During the broadcast, E.V. raised the subject of “the Öcalan case” and criticised certain persons who had participated in it, including F.K., a lawyer who had stood as a candidate in past legislative and European elections. In June 1999 F.K. brought an action for damages alleging insult and defamation. The courts found against the applicant in June 2004 and ordered him to pay EUR 161,408. Following a settlement reached with F.K. in the domestic courts, the applicant paid the latter EUR 41,067.48 in compensation for the damage sustained and EUR 1,170 for the costs incurred before the Court of Cassation.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that his right of access to a court had been infringed. In addition, taking the view that he should not be held liable for remarks made by a third party during a radio programme of a political nature, he complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of a violation of his right to freedom of expression.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 10. It considered, in particular, that the journalist and coordinator could not be held liable in the same way as the person who had made remarks that were possibly controversial, insulting or defamatory. It awarded the applicant EUR 42,238 for pecuniary damage and EUR 7,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland (no. 31930/04) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

The applicant, Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir, is an Icelandic national who was born in 1998 and lives in Reykjavík.

Soon after the applicant’s birth at the National and University Hospital (NUH), it became clear that she was severely handicapped both physically and mentally. Her disability is assessed at 100%. Alleging medical negligence, the applicant's parents brought judicial proceedings on her behalf against the State of Iceland. The District Court found that the State was liable and awarded the applicant compensation, plus interest, as well as certain sums for legal costs, to be received by her parents on her behalf. In February 2003, the State Medico-Legal Board (SMLB), four of whose members were employees of the NUH, and which had a special statutory role in proceedings before the Supreme Court, was requested to give an opinion on the matter. In a judgment of 11 March 2004, the SMLB’s final report having been given significant weight, the Supreme Court overturned the District Court's finding.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that the Supreme Court had not afforded her a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, in particular by basing its findings on the opinion of the employees of the respondent party.

The Court considered in particular that the applicant could legitimately fear that the SMLB had not acted with proper neutrality in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and therefore awarded the applicant EUR 75,000 in respect of damages and EUR 18,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Repetitive cases

In the following cases, the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Baygayev v. Russia (no. 36398/04)

Kumkin and Others v. Russia (no. 73294/01)

Levochkina v. Russia (no. 944/02)

Saidov v. Russia (no. 6558/06)

Nikolay Zhukov v. Russia (no. 560/02)

Smirnitskaya and Others v. Russia (no. 852/02)

Volkova and Basova v. Russia (no. 842/02)

Galitskiy v. Ukraine (no. 17082/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The applicants are 21 Russian nationals and one Ukrainian national.

In the cases of Baygayev, Saidov and Galitskiy , the applicants complained that judgments in their favour had not been enforced in good time.

In the case of Kumkin and Others the applicants complained about the quashing of the final judgments given in their favour.

In the cases of Levochkina, Nikolay Zhukov, Smirnitskaya and Others and Volkova and Basova, the applicants alleged, in particular, that the domestic authorities had reconsidered a judgment given in their favour without using the proper procedures.

They all relied, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). They further relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), with the exception of the case of Galitskiy .

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all the cases. Furthermore, it also held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, with the exception of the case of Galitskiy . The sums awarded to the applicants under Article 41 (just satisfaction) can be found at the end of the judgments. (The judgments are only available in English.)

Length-of-proceedings cases

In the following cases the applicants complained in particular of the excessive length of (non ‑ criminal) proceedings. They all relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. In the twelve Italian cases, the applicants considered that the sums awarded by the Courts of Appeal for non-pecuniary damage concerning the « Pinto » procedure had not been sufficient to cover the damage caused by excessive length of proceedings before the Italian courts. The applicants also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) with the exception of the following cases: Civitillo v. Italy; Concetta Parrella v. Italy; Gregori v. Italy; Barskiy v. Ukraine; Panchenko v. Ukraine; Panteleeva v. Ukraine.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

No violation of Article 13

Bertossie and Martinelli v. Italy (no. 62158/00)

Ceruti v. Italy (no. 66418/01)

Fascini v. Italy (no. 56300/00)

G.M. v. Italy (no. 56293/00)

Locatelli v. Italy (no. 62157/00)

Lorenzo Campana v. Italy (no. 56301/00)

Martinelli and Dotti v. Italy (no. 66419/01)

Prati v. Italy (no. 62154/00)

Provide S.R.L. v. Italy (no. 62155/00)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

Civitillo v. Italy (no. 64888/01)

Concetta Parrella v. Italy (no. 64889/01)

Gregori v. Italy (no. 62265/00)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

Lazarevska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 22931/03)

Sali v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 14349/03)

Ziberi v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 27866/02)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)

Violation of Article 13

Barskiy v. Ukraine (no. 10569/03)

Panchenko v. Ukraine (no. 25681/03)

Panteleeva v. Ukraine (no. 31780/02)

(The judgments are available in English or French.)

***

These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).

Press contacts

Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)

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.

[1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.

[2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.