CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 juin 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   459 19.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, France, Greece, Russia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Bacic v. Croatia (application no. 43595/06) The applicant, Ismeta Bačić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Zagreb.   The case concerned Ms Bačić’s complaint about the unfairness of bankruptcy proceedings against her former employer in which her claims for salary arrears were declared inadmissible. She relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and awarded Ms   Bačić 5,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   515 for costs and expenses. The Court further held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gauchin v. France (no. 7801/03) The applicants, René Gauchin and his son Olivier Gauchin, are French nationals who were born in 1933 and 1964 respectively and live in Buire Courcelles (France).   The case concerned proceedings relating to a lease on agricultural land belonging to the first applicant. The applicants complained in particular of an infringement of the first applicant’s right of property on account of the fact that he was unable to recover possession of his land when the lease expired so that the second applicant could farm it. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ichtigiaroglou v. Greece (no. 12045/06) The applicant, Olga Ichtigiaroglou, is a Greek national who was born in 1922 and lives in Thessaloniki (Greece).   The case concerned proceedings brought by the applicant in 1993 to obtain an old-age pension. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and by six votes to one that there had also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 50,000 EUR for all heads of damage taken together and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses.         Three violations of Article 3 (treatment) Guliyev v. Russia (no. 24650/02) The applicant, Magsud Moysum-Ogly Guliyev, is a Russian national of Azeri ethnic origin who was born in 1965 and lives in Zheshart, in the Komi Republic (Russia).   Mr Guliyev was arrested in January 2000 on suspicion of involuntary manslaughter and detained in temporary detention facilities in Ukhta Town and Sosnogorsk until January 2002 when, found guilty as charged, he was transferred to a correctional colony in the Mordoviya Republic to serve his seven years prison sentence. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his pre-trial detention and of transport from the detention facility in Sosnogorsk to another in Nizhniy Novgorod and then, from there, to a correctional colony. He relied, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The Court found that the fact that Mr Guliyev had had to live, sleep and use the toilet in overcrowded (no more than 3.5 square metres of personal space per detainee) cells for almost two years had to have caused him distress or hardship which had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and to have aroused in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention from January 2000 to January 2002.   The Court also noted that, from Sosnogorsk to Nizhniy Novgorod, Mr Guliyev had spent 65   hours in a two square-metre train compartment, being woken up to be checked every two hours, and then, from Nizhniy Novgorod to the correctional colony, another 12 hours in a similar compartment with four other detainees. The Court considered that the cumulative effects of those cramped conditions together with sleep deprivation during the first journey and lack of food, lighting and ventilation during both journeys, had to have caused Mr   Guliyev intense physical suffering. The Court therefore considered that the conditions of the applicant’s transport during both journeys had been inhuman, in violation of Article 3.   The Court awarded Mr   Guliyev EUR   12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length) Fetaovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 10649/03) The applicant, Rami Fetaovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Kumanovo (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness and excessive length of civil proceedings he brought for damages following the slaughter of his sheep because they were infected with a contagious disease (brucellosis). He also complained that he was not awarded any compensation. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 in respect of the applicant’s right of access to a court and to have his case heard within a reasonable time, and that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. As Mr   Fetaovski had made no claim under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court made no such award. (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) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Isakov v. Russia (no. 20745/04)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Maltseva v. Russia (no. 76676/01) Yerogova v. Russia (no. 77478/01) The Court found the above violations in these three cases concerning the State’s failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour and the quashing of those judgments by way of supervisory review.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Lukyanov v. Ukraine (no. 11921/04 The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the State’s failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour in good time. 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) Violation of Article 13 Vlachou v. Greece (no. 2655/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Philippos Ionnidis v. Greece (no. 22957/06) Gjozev v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 14260/03) Manevski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 22742/02) Lesina v. Ukraine (no. 9510/03)   ***   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 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.