CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 mai 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   392 29.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Estonia, Greece, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine 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.   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Bergmann v. Estonia (application no. 38241/04) The applicant, Andres Bergmann, is an Estonian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Tõrva (Estonia).   On 13   December 2001 the applicant was placed in detention on charges of economic offences. In January 2002 he was released on bail but, failing to appear at a hearing in March 2004, the trial court ordered his detention. He was re-arrested and placed in custody on 31   March 2004. The applicant’s request for release was dismissed following another hearing, at which he was present, on 26   April 2004. He was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about his re-arrest on 31   March 2004. He relied on Article   5 §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the court order to re-arrest the applicant on 31   March 2004 had been based on a decision taken approximately two years previously and that the Estonian courts should therefore have made a fresh examination of the circumstances in order to justify the applicant’s renewed detention. Moreover, the first opportunity that the applicant had to personally present arguments for his release was 26 days after his arrest. The Court found that that period had not been compatible with the requirement under Article 5 for a person to be brought promptly before a judge and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention. It further held that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article   5 §   4. Mr   Bergmann was awarded 3,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.) Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Bugayev v. Ukraine (no. 26168/04) Violation of Article 6 §1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Kislaya v. Ukraine (no. 21050/02) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all. The Court held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) in the case of Bugayev .   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article   6 §   1 about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Loukas v. Greece (no. 26279/06) Solomatina v. Ukraine (no. 311/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Maruseva v. Russia (no. 28602/02) Nikonenko v. Ukraine (no. 14089/03) Terentyev v. Ukraine (no. 39763/02) Yakymenko v. Ukraine (no. 19142/03)   ***     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.