CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 juillet 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 } .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   499 3.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Russia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18   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 (length) Violation of Article 13 Balabanov v. Bulgaria (application no. 70843/01) The applicant, Kostadin Stoyanov Balabanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Peshtera (Bulgaria).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length of criminal proceedings against him for, in particular, theft and embezzlement. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) 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 of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   6 §   1. The Court awarded Mr   Balabanov 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Georgieva v. Bulgaria (no. 16085/02) The applicant, Elena Georgieva Georgieva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   In August 2001 she was arrested and remanded in custody for acquiring and being in possession of prohibited drugs. The prosecution discontinued the criminal proceedings against her on 4 March 2002 and she was released on the same day. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that the length of her pre-trial detention had been excessive. She further relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to speedy review of the lawfulness of detention).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Krushev v. Bulgaria (no. 66535/01) The applicant, Vihur (Victor) Sevdalinov Krushev, is an Australian and Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Eaglemount (Australia).   In November 1992 he was admitted against his will to a psychiatric institution pursuant to an order by the Sofia district prosecutor’s office. He was released in December 1992, after the order concerned had been declared null and void. In January 1994 he submitted a compensation claim in respect of the prejudice he had suffered on account of his forced confinement. The claim was dismissed by a final decision in August 2003. The applicant complained that he had been deprived of his liberty unlawfully and arbitrarily, in breach of Article 5 § 1 (e) (right to liberty and security). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complained that the compensation proceedings had been excessively lengthy.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) and Article 6   §   1. It awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   600 for costs and expenses.   Just satisfaction Kushoglu v. Bulgaria (no. 48191/99) The applicants, Ayten Kushoglu and Mehmet Kushoglu, have both Bulgarian and Turkish nationality. They were born in 1958 and 1956, respectively, and live in Malkara (Turkey).   In a judgment of 10 May 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in that the Bulgarian authorities had failed to assist the applicants to recover property they had sold to their local municipality when forced to leave Bulgaria in 1989. The Court further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In its judgment today, the Court awarded Ayten Kushoglu and Mehmet Kushoglu EUR   9,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Vokoun v. the Czech Republic (no. 20728/05) The applicant, Antonín Vokoun, is a Czech national who was born in 1939 and lives in Bělá pod Bezdězem (Czech Republic).   The case concerned proceedings brought by the applicant to obtain recognition of his title to various properties. He complained that the Constitutional Court had not sent him a copy of the observations of the other party to the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   After finding that Article 6 was applicable to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in the applicant’s case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Two violations of Article 2 (life and investigation) Violation of Article 3 (treatment in respect of the applicant) Violation of Article 5 (in respect of the applicant’s relatives) Violation of Article 13 No violation of Article 14 Violation of Article 38 §   1 (a) Akhiyadova v. Russia (no. 32059/02) Two violations of Article 2 (life and investigation) Two violations of Article 3 (treatment in respect of the applicant and her son) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Violation of Article 5 Two violations of Article 13 Violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) Musayeva v. Russia (no. 12703/02) Two violations of Article 2 (life and investigation) Two violations of Article 3 (treatment in respect of the applicant) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) No violation Article 3 (in respect of the applicant’s son) Violation of Article 5 Two violations of Article 13 Violation of Article 38 §   1 (a) Ruslan Umarov v. Russia (no. 12712/02) The applicants are three Russian nationals who live in the Chechen Republic. Esila Sultanovna Akhiyadova lives in Makhkety and is the wife and daughter-in-law of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov, born in 1977 and 1932 respectively, whom she has not seen since 13   February 2002. Khapta Musayeva lives in Grozny and is the mother of Yakub Iznaurov, born in 1966, whom she has not seen since 5 February 2000. Ruslan Usmanovich Umarov lives in Grozny and is the father of Magomed Umarov, born in 1975, whom he has not seen since 27   May 2000.   The cases concerned the applicants’ allegations that their relatives disappeared after being unlawfully detained by Russian servicemen and that the Russian authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. All the applicants relied, in particular, on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 34 (right of individual petition) and   38 §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case). Ms Akhiyadova also relied on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court found that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform, with military vehicles, had been able to detain in broad daylight the applicants’ four relatives at their homes strongly supported the allegation that their abductors had been Russian servicemen. Drawing inferences from the Russian Government’s failure to submit documents – despite specific requests from the Court – to which it exclusively had access and the fact that it had not provided any other plausible explanation for the disappearances, the Court considered that Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov, Yakub Iznaurov and Magomed Umarov had been arrested by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. There had been no reliable news of the applicants’ relatives since their abduction and the Russian Government had not submitted any explanation as to what had happened to them. In the context of the conflict in Chechnya, when a person had been detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of their detention, that situation could be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of the applicants’ relatives or any news of them for several years corroborated that assumption. Therefore the four men had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen. Noting that the authorities had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of all four men. It also held, in each case, that there had been a further violation of Article 2 concerning the Russian authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared.   In all of the cases, the Court considered that the applicants had suffered, and continued to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their relatives and their inability to find out what had happened to them. The manner in which their complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3. In the case of Umarov , the Court held that there had been two further violations of Article 3 in respect of the applicant as the evidence had shown that he had been beaten and sustained injuries when his son had been apprehended and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into that ill-treatment. However, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 3 in respect of Mr Umarov’s son, since the information available had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he had been subjected to ill-treatment. In the case of Musayeva, the Court noted that the applicant’s son had been made to kneel on tram tracks, half dressed with a mask pulled over his face and his hands tied by metal wire behind his back, for two hours in the cold. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3 in respect of the ill-treatment of Ms Musayeva’s son and that there had been a further violation of Article 3 in that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into that ill-treatment.   The Court further found that the applicants’ relatives had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in that article.   In the case of Akhiyadova , the Court further also held that there had been a violation of Article   13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article   2 and that no separate issues arose under that article or under Article   34. It further held that there had been no violation of Article   14.   In the case of Musayeva, the Court also held that there had been two violations of Article   13 in respect of the alleged violation of Articles   2 and   of Article 3 as regards the applicant’s son. It further held that no separate issues arose under Articles 13 or 34.   In the case of Ruslan Umarov, the Court held that there had been two violations of Article   13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article   2 and of Article   3 as regards the applicant’s ill-treatment. It further held that no separate issues arose under Articles   13 or 34.   Lastly, the Court held that there had been a failure to comply with Article   38 §   1   (a) in that the Government had refused to submit documents requested by the Court.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded Ms   Akhiyadova EUR   70,000, Mrs   Musayeva EUR   35,000 and Mr   Umarov EUR   40,000. In respect of pecuniary damage, they were further awarded EUR   5,000, EUR   10,000 and EUR   15,000, respectively. They were also awarded, respectively, EUR   5,150, EUR   8,000 and EUR   7,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Belov v. Russia (no. 22053/02) The applicant, Igor Vasilyevich Belov is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lived in Yakhroma (Russia). He is currently in detention following his arrest in August 1995 on suspicion of unlawful possession of weapons.   In April 2002 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. In the meantime, another set of criminal proceedings was brought against him on suspicion of murder for which he was ultimately acquitted in September 2001. The case concerned the applicant’s complaints about being beaten by prison warders in December 2001 and about the unlawfulness and length of his detention. He also complained about the excessive length of the first set of criminal proceedings against him. He relied, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment), Article   5 §§   1   (c) and   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   5   §   1   (c) on account of the applicant’s detention from 12   October to 21   November 2001 but that there had been a violation of that article on account of the applicant’s detention from 6   March to 12   October 2001 and from 21   November 2001 to 27   April 2002. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of the unreasonable length of the applicant’s detention. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the excessive length of the first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Article   3 of Protocol No.   7 Unable to take cognisance of the merits of the case Matveyev v. Russia (no. 26601/02) The applicant, Sergey Nilovich Matveyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Arkhangelsk (Russia).   In August 1981 the applicant was convicted of forgery of a postage stamp and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He served the sentence and was dismissed from his job. In supervisory review proceedings, the Russian courts subsequently found that that conviction was unlawful. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that his claim for compensation of non-pecuniary damage as a result of his unlawful conviction was dismissed, whereas his claim for pecuniary damage was granted. He relied on Article   3 of Protocol No.   7 (compensation for wrongful conviction).   The Court held unanimously that, as Article   3 of Protocol No.   7 was not applicable, it was unable to examine the merits of the case. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Jankulovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 6906/03) The applicant, Tomce Jankulovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Bitola (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that a judgment in his favour with regard to the recovery of a debt was not enforced in good time. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) 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 Article   1 of Protocol No.1. (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) Regálová v. the Czech Republic (no. 40593/05) The Court found the above violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court because of the particularly strict interpretation by the Czech Constitutional Court of the conditions of admissibility of a constitutional appeal.   Violation of Article 6 §   1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Belotserkovets v. Russia (no. 34679/03) Kolayev v. Russia (no. 43284/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Lyudmila Smirnova v. Russia (no. 8910/04) The above three cases concerned the applicants’ complaints that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce final judgments in their favour in good time or at all.     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 Kuncheva v. Bulgaria (no. 9161/02) Vidas v. Croatia (no. 40383/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Pavlovska v. Ukraine (no. 36949/02)     ***   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 Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.