CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 septembre 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   637 18.9.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, France, Greece, Italy, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Müller v. Austria (No. 2) (application no. 28034/04) The applicant, Pierre Müller, is an Austrian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Vienna. He is the owner and managing director of a building company.   In October 1997 an employee died as a result of falling off scaffolding on one of the applicant’s building sites. The case concerned, in particular, Mr Müller’s complaint about the excessive length of the ensuing administrative criminal proceedings against him for breach of safety regulations. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   4 of Protocol   No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that the overall duration of the proceedings, more than five years and eight months, had not been reasonable and therefore held that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. Mr   Müller was awarded 1,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,670 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kandler and Others v. France (no. 18659/05) The applicants are Stephan Kandler, Claire Kandler née Pourteau, Christine Kandler née Rémy and Anne-Marie Ader, French nationals, and Ortwin Kandler, a German national. They were born in 1970, 1970, 1944, 1951 and 1940 respectively and live in Blagnac and Toulouse (France).   The case concerned searches and seizures of documents by the tax authorities on the basis of suspicions that the applicants were involved in tax fraud. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained that they had had no effective remedy by which to challenge the legality of the searches and seizures carried out at their homes.   The Court stated that it had already examined in a previous case ( Ravon v. France no.   18497/03) the various judicial remedies available under domestic law and had concluded that they did not satisfy the requirements of the Convention. Consequently, it held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) on account of the lack of effective judicial scrutiny and that it was not necessary to determine whether there had been a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 8. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction and awarded Ortwin Kandler EUR   8,073 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Vlachos v. Greece (no. 20643/06) The applicant, Charalambos Vlachos, is a Greek national who was born in 1962 and lives in Ilion Attikis (Greece).   He complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for producing counterfeit bank notes and participating in an organised criminal group, at the end of which he had been sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted six years and eight months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the length was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, it held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and awarded the applicant EUR   3,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 2 (life and investigation) Violation of Article 3 (treatment in respect of the applicants) Violation of Article 5 (in respect of the applicants’ relative) Violation of Article 13 Takhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 23286/04). The applicants, Rabu Mutushovna Takhayeva, Khashim Nurdinovich Takhayev, Zaira Khashimovna Takhayeva, Islam Sultanovich Tumanov and Razet Zayndiyevna Terkibayeva are five Russian nationals who live in Mesker-Yurt, a village in the Shalinskiy District of Chechnya. They are the parents, brother, nephew and grandmother of Ayub Khashidovich Takhayev, born in 1982, whom they have not seen since 13 November 2002.   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that their relative disappeared after being abducted by Russian servicemen during a “sweeping” operation in their village and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegation. They relied on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court found that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform, with military vehicles, had been able to move freely around the applicants’ village at night strongly resembled a military special operation and supported the allegation that Ayub Takhayev’s abductors had been Russian servicemen. Furthermore, three other men of the same village had disappeared the next day in similar circumstances. 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 events in question, the Court considered that Ayub Takhayev had been arrested by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. There had been no reliable news of the applicants’ relative since his abduction and the Russian Government had not submitted any further explanations. 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’ relative or any news of him for more than five years corroborated that assumption. Therefore Ayub Takhayev had to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen. Noting that the authorities had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, the Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants’ relative. It also held 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’ relative had disappeared.   The Court also considered that the applicants had suffered, and continued to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their relative and their inability to find out what had happened to him. 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.   The Court further found that the applicants’ relative 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.   Finally, the Court 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 in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5.   In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded Ayub Takhayev’s parents EUR   3,000, jointly. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   25,000, jointly, to Ayub Takhayev’s parents, EUR   5,000, jointly, to his brother and nephew and EUR   5,000 to his grandmother. The applicants were awarded EUR   3,650 for costs and expenses. (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) Fokin v. Russia (no. 75893/01) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the Russian authorities’ failure to notify the applicant of an appeal hearing.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bakharev and Others v. Russia (no. 32786/04) Denisova v. Russia (no. 34431/04) Dokolin v. Russia (no. 28488/04) Glukhova and Bragina v. Russia (no. 28785/04) Kholodenko v. Russia (no. 33617/04) Lyatskaya v. Russia (no. 33548/04) Karpenko and Markov v. Ukraine (nos. 1351/06 and 2433/06) The Court found the above violations in these 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 Karpenko and Markov .     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Laudanna v. Italy (no. 4289/03)     ***   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 Adrien Raif-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.