CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 mars 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC6C0EBF2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   163 6.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Two violations of Article 3 Violation of Article 5 § 3 Two violations of Article 5 § 4 Violation of Article 5 § 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Two violations of Article 13 Gavazov v. Bulgaria (application no. 54659/00) The applicant, Nikolay Kirilov Gavazov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria).   In December 1998 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on rape charges. From 10 December 1998 to 4   March 1999 he was detained at Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and, from 4 March 1999 to 3 November 2000, at Pazardzhik Prison. The applicant made numerous requests to be released pending trial which were refused by the domestic courts due to the seriousness of his offence and the risk that he might abscond, reoffend or obstruct the investigation. Similarly, the applicants’ appeals of 30   September 1999, 22   February and 22   March 2000 were rejected on account of the nature of the offence and the applicant’s criminal tendencies. A further appeal of 29   September 2000 was also rejected on the ground that the courts did not consider that they were competent to examine it. The applicant was, ultimately, released on 3 November 2000. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending.   Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicant complained about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention in Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and Pazardzhik Prison, notably as concerned the size of the cells, poor hygiene, lack of fresh air or sunlight, little exercise and unhealthy food. Further relying on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), he made a number of complaints concerning the unlawfulness of his detention on remand. He also complained under Articles   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Given the cumulative effects of the unjustifiably stringent regime to which the applicant had been subjected and the conditions in which he had been kept for almost three months at Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service and for almost one year and eight months at Pazardzhik Prison, the Court found that the distress and hardship he had endured had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that the resulting anguish had gone beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention in each facility in Pazardzhik. The Court further considered that, at the relevant time, there had been no effective remedy under Bulgarian law to complain about those inadequate conditions of detention, in violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article   3.   Furthermore, the Court found that, as in previous cases against Bulgaria where violations had been found, the Bulgarian courts had failed to give any reason or evidence about the danger of the applicant absconding, re-offending or obstructing the investigation and had considered the applicant’s detention mandatory purely on the basis of statutory provisions concerning serious intentional offences. The Court therefore held that the courts had failed to justify the applicant’s continued detention, in violation of Article 5 § 3.   Similarly, the courts, in response to the applicant’s appeals of 30   September 1999, 22   February and 22   March 2000, had failed to refer to specific evidence which would indicate that the applicant might abscond or obstruct the investigation, only relying on the nature of the offence and the applicant’s personality. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the limited scope and nature of the judicial control of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention.   It also held that there had been a further violation of Article 5 § 4 in that the applicant had been denied access to effective judicial proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of his continued detention following the courts’ failure to examine his appeal of 29   September 2000.   The Court further noted that, under Bulgarian domestic law, a person who had been remanded in custody could seek compensation only if the detention order had been set aside “for lack of lawful grounds”. In the applicant’s case, his detention on remand had been considered by the domestic courts as being in full compliance with the requirements of domestic law and he had therefore not had an enforceable right to compensation. Given that it did not appear that such a right was secured under any other provision of Bulgarian law, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   Finally, the Court found that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (more than seven years) had been excessive, in violation of Article 6 § 1, and that the applicant had had no effective remedy to enforce that right to a “hearing within a reasonable time”, in violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article   6 §   1.   The Court awarded the applicant 6,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gikas v. Greece (no. 903/06) Sekseni v. Greece (no. 41515/05) The applicants are Vasilios Gikas, a Greek national who was born in 1953 and lives in Athens, and Baftjar Sekseni, an Albanian national who was born in 1967 and is currently in Patras Prison (Greece).   Mr Gikas was arrested in November 2000 on suspicion of fraud and given a three-year suspended prison sentence, which was reduced to a suspended eight-month prison sentence in June 2005. The proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.   Mr Sekseni complained about the criminal proceedings brought against him in April 2003 for possession of and trafficking in drugs.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about the excessive length of the respective proceedings against them.   The Court noted that the impugned proceedings had lasted for more than seven years in Mr Gikas’ case and for more than four years in that of Mr Sekseni. It found those periods excessive. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR   4,000 to Mr Gikas and EUR   4,500 to Mr Sekseni. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Hoření v. the Czech Republic (no. 31806/02) The applicant, Karel Hoření, is a Czech national who was born in 1930 and lives in České Budějovice (Czech Republic).   In May 1995 the company belonging to the applicant signed a cooperation agreement with a company called E.K. The case concerned an action brought by the applicant against E.K. in April 1997 for, among other things, the return of office equipment and workshop keys. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), the applicant complained of the dismissal of his complaint by the Constitutional Court.   The Court found that, as in a previous case, the particularly stringent interpretation by the Czech Constitutional Court of the conditions governing admissibility of constitutional complaints had impaired the applicant’s right of access to a court, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR   100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Abdeyevy v. Russia (no. 38405/02) Denisov v. Russia (no. 34433/04) Kuryanov v. Russia (no. 37643/04) Trunov v. Russia (no. 9769/04)   (2 nd and 3 rd applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Braga, Timofeyev and Kiryushkina v. Russia (no. 24229/03) The Court found the above violations in these five cases concerning the failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or not at all. In the case of Abdeyevy , the Court held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Plazonić v. Croatia (no. 26455/04) Techtron E.P.E. v. Greece (no. 5453/06)     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.