CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   522 10.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Azerbaijan, Croatia, France, Russia and   Ukraine   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.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (application no. 16528/05) The applicant, Vagif Mustafa oglu Hajibeyli, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1960 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan). Mr Hajibeyli was a politician of one of the opposition parties in Azerbaijan.   In April 2000 he participated in a demonstration at Fuzuli Square in Baku and, following clashes between demonstrators and the police, he was arrested. He was subsequently charged with obstructing the police and, released from detention on remand, he was prohibited from leaving his place of residence. On 30   April 2005 the proceedings against him were discontinued on the ground that the charges had become time-barred. The preventive measure against him was, however, only lifted on 14 September 2005. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and that he was not allowed to leave his place of residence for approximately five years and four months. He relied, in particular, on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the length of the proceedings against the applicant, more than five years and four months, had been excessive and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. It also found that the total period of restriction on the applicant’s freedom of movement had been disproportionate and that, from 30 April 2005, that restriction had not been “in accordance with the law” as the charges had become time-barred. The Court therefore also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   2 of Protocol No.   4. Mr   Hajibeyli was awarded 1,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Rahmanova v. Azerbaijan (no. 34640/02) The applicant, Leyli Pasha qizi Rahmanova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1938 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan).   The case concerned Ms Rahmanova’s complaint that a final judicial decision in her favour regarding a dispute with her daughter-in-law over an apartment was quashed by way of an additional cassation procedure. She relied on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) 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 concerning the quashing of the final judicial decision in the applicant’s favour by way of an additional cassation procedure. It found, however, that it was not necessary to examine the allegations of procedural unfairness of those proceedings. Mrs   Rahmanova was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Blandeau v. France (no. 9090/06) The applicant, Mireille Blandeau, is a French national who was born in 1950 and lives in Poitiers (France). She is a civilian public employee in the Ministry of Defence.   The applicant made three applications for legal aid in connection with three appeals which she had lodged on different dates against three different administrative decisions: an administrative assessment, an administrative sanction and a refusal to grant leave for re-training. The applicant complained that she had not been given notice of two decisions rejecting her applications for legal aid in her appeals to the Conseil d’Etat and about the dismissal of her appeals of points of law, by the Conseil d’Etat , on the ground that she had not had legal representation. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and held that the finding of a violation provided in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Guarrigenc v. France (no. 21148/02) The applicant, Pierre   Garriguenc, is a French national who was born in 1955 and lives in Rognes (France).   He was placed under judicial investigation and remanded in custody in January 1996, on suspicion of murder. He lodged several applications for release, which were rejected. He was released in July 2000, but was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in December 2001. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention.   The Court considered that the length of Mr Garriguenc’s pre-trial detention – four years, six   months and 18 days – had been excessive and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It awarded the applicant EUR   4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,050 for costs and expenses.   Violation of Article 5 § 1 No violation of Article 5 § 3 Medvedyev and Others v. France (no. 3394/03) The applicants are Oleksandr Medvedyev and Borys Bilenikin, Ukrainian nationals, Nicolae Balaban, Puiu Dodica, Nicu Stelian Manolache and Viorel Petcu, Romanian nationals, Georgios Boreas, a Greek national, and Sergio Cabrera Leon and Guillermo Luis Eduar Sage Martinez, Chilean nationals. They were crew-members of the Winner , a cargo vessel flying the flag of Cambodia.   As part of an international operation against drug trafficking, the French authorities were informed that the ship was likely to be carrying significant quantities of narcotics. In consequence, the maritime authorities apprehended it on the high seas, in the waters off Cap Verde, then towed it to Brest harbour (France). The applicants claimed to have been the victims of an arbitrary deprivation of liberty on account of being detained on board the Winner for 13   days under the surveillance of the French armed forces, then in police custody – two days for some of them, three days for the others – on their arrival in Brest. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), they complained that that deprivation of liberty had been unlawful, particularly in the light of international law. Under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), they also complained that they had waited 15 to 16 days to be brought before “a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power”.   A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 13 May 2008.   The Court concluded that the applicants had not been deprived of their liberty in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and consequently held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1. However, considering that the length of that deprivation of liberty had been justified by the “wholly exceptional circumstances” of the case, in particular the inevitable delay entailed by having the Winner tugged to France, the Court concluded, by four votes to three, that there had not been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, and awarded them EUR   5,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 10 Soulas and Others v. France (no. 15948/03) The applicants, Gilles Soulas and Guillaume Faye, are French nationals who were born in 1955 and 1949 respectively and live in Paris. The third applicant is a company, Société européenne de diffusion et d’édition , which has its registered office in Paris.   The case concerned criminal proceedings brought against the applicants, in their respective capacities as author (the first applicant), accessory (the second applicant) and civilly liable (the third applicant), following the publication of a book entitled "The colonisation of Europe”, with the subtitle “Truthful remarks about immigration and Islam”. In the book, the author sought “to emphasise, in particular, what he regarded as the incompatibility between European civilisation and Islamic civilisation in a specific geographical area”. The first two applicants were convicted for inciting hatred and violence against Muslim communities from northern and central Africa. They were each ordered to pay a fine of EUR 7,500. The applicants were also ordered to pay symbolic amounts in damages to the Ligue Internationale contre le Racisme et l’antisémitisme (The International League against Racism and Antisemitism) and the Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples (Movement against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples). They relied, in particular, on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court noted, in particular, that, when convicting the applicants, the domestic courts had underlined that the terms used in the book were intended to give rise in readers to a feeling of rejection and antagonism, exacerbated by the use of military language, with regard to the communities in question, which were designated as the main enemy, and to lead the book’s readers to share the solution recommended by the author, namely a war of ethnic re-conquest. Holding that the grounds put forward in support of the applicants’ conviction had been sufficient and relevant, the Court considered that the interference in the latter’s right to freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society”. It therefore concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 10. Finally, the Court considered that the disputed passages in the book were not sufficiently serious to justify the application of Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Three violations of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 13 Sudarkov v. Russia (no. 3130/03) The applicant, Vladimir Anatolyevich Sudarkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Mineralniye Vody (Russia).   In May 2000 Mr Sudarkov was arrested on charges of passing counterfeit money. He was found guilty in April 2002 and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the conditions: of his detention on remand in Moscow; of transport from Moscow to a correctional colony in the Stavropol Region; and, of his detention in Volgograd “transit” remand centre during that journey to the colony. He relied, in particular, on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court found that the fact that Mr Sudarkov had had to live, sleep and use the toilet in overcrowded cells (less than one square metre of personal space in the remand facilities in Moscow and less than 0.6 square metres in the Volgograd “transit” remand centre) 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. It also noted that the applicant’s cells both in Moscow and Volgograd had poor lighting and ventilation and that the applicant had had no opportunity for outdoor exercise. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention on remand at the facilities in both Moscow and Volgograd.   The Court also noted that, during the applicant’s transfer by train from Moscow to the correctional colony in Stavropol, he had spent many hours in very cramped conditions (less than 0.3   square metres of personal space) and if he had needed to use the lavatory more than twice a day, he had had to use a plastic bottle instead of a lavatory pan. The Court considered that those conditions had to have caused the applicant intense physical suffering and had been inhuman and degrading, in further violation of Article 3.   Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of an effective and accessible remedy under domestic law for the applicant to complain about the general conditions of his detention.   The Court awarded Mr   Sudarkov EUR   12,000 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Abramov v. Ukraine (no. 39491/03) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Skrypnyak and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 9177/05, 14241/05, 10596/06, 17346/06, 20912/06 and 34604/06) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the prolonged failure to execute judgments in favour of the applicants.     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) Nikolac v. Croatia (no. 17117/06) Pleteš v. Croatia (no. 21591/06)     ***   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 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.