CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 octobre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   708 9.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Azerbaijan, Bulgaria Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Akimova v. Azerbaijan (application no. 19853/03) The applicant, Valentina Akimova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1950 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan). In a judgment of 27   September 2007, the Court found that the domestic authorities’ decision to postpone, for an indefinite period of time, the enforcement of an eviction order against internally displaced persons illegally occupying the applicant’s apartment had amounted to an unlawful interference with the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights considered that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 10,000   New Azerbaijani manats (approximately 8,579   euros   (EUR)) is to be paid for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. In addition, the Court had regard to the fact that, following a decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 21   January 2008, the applicant’s possession of her apartment   had been restored on 14   March 2008 (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kalkanov v. Bulgaria (no. 19612/02) The applicant, Iliya Georgiev Kalkanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Pleven (Bulgaria).   The case concerns civil proceedings brought by the applicant to have his dismissal for misconduct revoked. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained about the refusal by the Supreme Court of Cassation to examine his argument about his employer’s failure to consult the medical commission before dismissing him.   The Court noted that the Supreme Court of Cassation had refused to examine the applicant’s argument on the pretext that it was a new argument which had not been examined by the lower courts and required the gathering of new evidence. However, the Court considered that this conclusion was clearly erroneous as it was not consonant with the material in the file or with the findings of the lower courts. The argument had actually been submitted in the applicant’s initial statement of claim and had therefore been raised before the lower courts, which had had jurisdiction to consider evidence proposed by the parties. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Valentin Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 76942/01) The applicant, Valentin Petrov Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia. In 1992 the applicant confessed to having assisted his former father-in-law   in   the murders of two body-guards. He was found guilty, in particular, of   premeditated aggravated murder   and   sentenced   to life imprisonment. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him which ended in 2000. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings, eight years and almost two months, and a violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   6 §   1 on account of the lack of an effective remedy for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. The Court awarded Mr   Ivanov EUR   600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Brajović-Bratanović v. Croatia (no. 9224/06) The applicant, Sofija Brajović-Bratanović, is a United States national who was born in 1946 and lives in Bethesda (United States of America). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about not being able to repossess her flat in Cavtat (Croatia) and the length of the civil proceedings, which have so far lasted six years and eight months. She 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 §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court held that the Croatian Government should secure the enforcement of the decision of the Ministry of Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction of 12   December 2003 in so far as it relates to the return of Ms   Brajović-Bratanović’s flat, and pay her EUR   10,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Just satisfaction Gashi v. Croatia (no. 32457/05) The applicant, Shani Gashi, now deceased, was a Croatian national who was born in 1962 and lived in Pula (Croatia). In a judgment of 13   December 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities had annulled the contract for a flat he had bought from Pula Municipality. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In its judgment today, the Court unanimously awarded Mr   Gashi’s widow and son, jointly, EUR   32,634.77 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,750 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Forminster Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic (no. 38238/04) The applicant, Forminster Enterprises Limited, is a company registered in Cyprus. In 1997, the applicant company entered into a purchase agreement with a company incorporated under Czech law. The gist of the applicant company’s complaint consisted in the allegation that shares in its possession had been seized contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that it had lost control over them as a result of that seizure. The seizure took place within the framework of criminal proceedings instituted against a member of the Czech company’s board of directors.   The Court acknowledged the importance of conducting investigations of suspected serious economic crimes with due diligence in order to ensure that these crimes were properly assessed and the proceedings duly terminated. Although Czech criminal law did not provide the applicant company with sufficient procedural guarantees within the meaning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considered that the   seizure was lawful due to the   nature of the review by   the Constitutional Court. However, taking into account the length of the seizure of the applicant company’s shares – more than eleven years   – and the considerable value of those assets, it found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. It held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) Abramyan v. Russia (no. 10709/02) The applicant, Edgar Nikolayevich Abramyan, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Pyatigorsk (Russia). In October 2000 Mr Abramyan was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment. The applicant complained that the reclassification of the offence by the trial court from accepting a bribe to fraud had prevented him from exercising his defence rights properly, and that his case had been examined on appeal in his and his counsel’s absence. He relied on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (a) and   (b) (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the examination of Mr   Abramyan’s case on appeal before the Supreme Court in his absence and that of his counsel. The Court found a violation of Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (a) and   (b) on account of the recharacterisation of the offence by the trial court as in particular the applicant’s rights to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence had been infringed. The Court awarded Mr Abramyan EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   35 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Itslayev v. Russia (no. 34631/02) The applicant, Dokka Saydaminovich Itslayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Nazran (Russia). The case concerned in particular the applicant’s complaint that   his action for payment of salary   arrears had been dismissed as lodged out of time. He relied on   Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing). The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6 §   1 in respect of the applicant’s right of access to a court. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Three violations of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) (fairness) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) No violation of Article 7 Two violations of Article 8 Moiseyev v. Russia (no. 62936/00) The applicant, Valentin Ivanovich Moiseyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Moscow. Mr Moiseyev was arrested in July 1998 and, accused of having disclosed classified information to a South Korean intelligence agent, was charged with high treason. He was convicted as charged by Moscow City Court in August 2001. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in January 2002.   The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his detention on remand in Lefortovo Prison, of transport between Lefortovo and Moscow City Court and of confinement at that court. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He then invoked Article   5 §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security). He further complained under Article   6 §§   1,   3   (b) and   (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the unfairness and excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He also alleged under Article   7 (no punishment without law) that his conviction had been based on unforeseeable and retrospective application of the law, there having been no statutory list of State secrets at the time he had allegedly committed high treason. Finally, relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), he complained of unjustified restrictions on family visits and his correspondence.   The Court found that the fact that the applicant had had to live, sleep and use the toilet in poorly lit and ventilated cells for almost four years, without any possibility for adequate outdoor exercise, must have caused him distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. It noted that the tiny cell had no partition or separation between the living area and the lavatory, which had not been equipped with any kind of flush, and that the applicant had had to apply medicine for his treatment for haemorrhoids. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Lefortovo remand prison.   The Court also noted that the applicant had been transported to the court hearings more than one hundred and fifty times in standard-issue prison vans which had sometimes been filled beyond their designed capacity. In the Court’s view, given that he had to remain in that confined space for several hours, these cramped conditions must have caused him intense physical suffering, which would have been further aggravated by the absence of adequate ventilation and lighting, and unreliable heating. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s transport between the remand prison and the courthouse.   Moreover, the Court observed that on more than one hundred and fifty days the applicant had been detained in the convoy cells, destined for detention of a very limited duration, located on the premises of the Moscow City Court. He had remained in cramped conditions for several hours a day and occasionally for as long as eight to ten hours. Although this detention was not continuous, it alternated with his detention in the remand prison and transport in conditions which the Court has already found above to have been inhuman and degrading. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the applicant’s detention in the extremely small cells of the convoy premises at the Moscow City Court without ventilation, food, drink or free access to a toilet, the Court held unanimously that there had been a further violation of Article   3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s confinement at the Moscow City Court.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3 on account of Mr Moiseyev’s pre-trial detention which lasted over two years and six months, and a violation of Article   5 §   4 on account of the Supreme Court’s failure to examine, or belated examination of, appeals against decisions rejecting requests for release.   Turning to Moiseyev’s trial, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Moscow City Court, and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings, which had lasted three years and six months. The Court found that the prosecuting authority had had unrestricted control in the matter of visits by counsel to the applicant and had been able to peruse the documents exchanged between them, which had the effect of giving the prosecution advance knowledge of the defence strategy and placed the applicant at a disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent. The Court further found that access by the applicant and his defence team to the case file and their own notes - which had been kept in a special secret department of the detention facility and the Moscow City Court - had been so curtailed that these measures had effectively prevented them from using the information contained in them, since they had had to rely solely on their recollections. Finally, the Court considered that the suffering and frustration which the applicant must have felt on account of the inhuman conditions of transport and confinement had impaired his faculty for concentration and intense mental application in the hours immediately preceding the court hearings, when his ability to instruct his counsel effectively and to consult with them had been of primordial importance. The cumulative effect of the conditions at hand and inadequacy of the available facilities had excluded any possibility for the applicant’s advance preparation of his defence, especially taking into account that he could not consult the case file or his notes in his cell. The overall effect of these difficulties, taken as a whole, had so restricted the rights of the defence that the principle of a fair trial, as set out in Article 6, had been contravened. Therefore, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c). Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   7.   Finally, the Court held unanimously that Article   8 had been breached on account of unjustified restrictions on both the applicant’s family visits and correspondence.   The Court awarded Mr   Moiseyev EUR   25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,973 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment) (investigation) Oleg Nikitin v. Russia (no. 36410/02) The applicant, Oleg Viktorovich Nikitin, is a Russian national who was born in 1977   and is currently serving a sentence in a penitentiary establishment in Mariinsk (Russia).   The case concerned Mr Nikitin’s allegation that he had been ill-treated by police officers and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment. He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy). On 31   October 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and taken to the police station. He alleged that he had been beaten by the police officers in order to secure a confession. He brought a complaint of ill-treatment by police officers. The Prosecutor did not find a prima facie case of ill-treatment and decided not to institute criminal proceedings. The applicant was never notified of this decision. He was convicted of robbery. The issue of ill-treatment raised by the applicant both in trial and on appeal remained unexamined.   The Court found that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article   3 in this connection. Having regard to the applicant’s consistent and detailed allegations, corroborated by the written depositions of the applicant’s co-defendant, and in view of the absence of any other plausible explanation as to the reasons of the recourse to physical force, the Court accepted that the applicant had been subjected to the ill-treatment by police as described.   As to the seriousness of the ill-treatment, the acts complained of had been such as to arouse in the applicant feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his physical and moral resistance. The existence of physical pain or suffering was attested by the applicant’s statements regarding his ill-treatment in custody and statements of his co-defendant from which it followed that the pain and suffering were inflicted on the applicant intentionally. In those circumstances, taken as a whole and having regard to its purpose and severity, the ill-treatment at issue amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in further violation of Article   3.   The Court held unanimously that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   13.   The Court awarded Mr   Nikitin EUR   8,000 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 Trochev v. Russia (no. 6396/05) The applicant, Vladimir Pavlovitch Trochev, is a Russian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Perm (Russia).   He complained of a long and unjustified delay in executing final domestic judicial decisions ordering the Russian authorities to pay him compensation for the damage sustained as a result of unlawful detention and conviction. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 5 § 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   3 of Protocol   No.   7 (compensation for wrongful conviction).   The Court noted that the Russian authorities had failed over a significant period – one year and eleven months – to comply with the final judicial decisions given in the applicant’s favour and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further held that there was no need to examine the complaints under Article 5 § 5 and Article   3 of Protocol   No.   7. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violations of Article 2 (life and investigation) No violation of Article 3 (treatment in respect of the applicants’ relative) Violation of Article 3 (treatment in respect of the applicants) Violation of Article 5 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 No violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 Violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) Yusupova and Zaurbekov v. Russia (no. 22057/02) The applicants are two Russian nationals, Roza Yusupova and Ayndi Zaurbekov, who were born in 1958 and 1983 respectively and live in Grozny (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and son of Abdulkasin Zaurbekov who was born in 1951. On 17   October 2000, having been told that his contract at the Temporary Office of the Interior of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny (the Oktyabrskiy VOVD) as a crane operator would not be extended, he went there to collect his wages with his son, Ayndi, who waited outside for him to return; he has not been seen since. The applicants alleged that the authorities were responsible for their relative’s disappearance and that the investigation into their allegation was inadequate.   They 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) and Article   38 §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   The Court found it established that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov entered, and never left, the premises of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. There has been no reliable news of the applicants’ relative since 17   October 2000 and the Government   did not submit any reasonable explanation as to what had happened to him after that date. In the context of the conflict in Chechnya, in a situation where the applicants’ relative entered the premises of a police station and went missing for years, it may be presumed, even in the absence of any conclusive evidence as to what exactly happened to him afterwards, that he was placed in unacknowledged detention under the control of the State. The Court further noted that these circumstances could be   described as life-threatening, given, in particular, the available information attesting several other cases of disappearance from the premises of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD of Grozny in September   –   October 2000.   Abdulkasim Zaurbekov went   missing for a considerable lapse of time and   has to be presumed dead following unacknowledged detention by State agents. The Court further found that the Russian Government had not accounted for the death of the applicants’ relative during his detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   2 as regards the disappearance of Abdulkasim Zaurbekov. It also   held   that there had been a   further violation of Article   2 on account of the authorities’ failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Abdulkasim Zaurbekov.   The Court   noted that it   was unable to establish, to the necessary degree of proof, the exact way in which Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had died and whether he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention and therefore held that there had been no violation of Article   3 as regards the alleged ill-treatment of Abdulkasim Zaurbekov.   The Court   considered that the applicants had suffered distress and anguish as a result of their relative’s disappearance and of their inability to find out what had happened to him or to receive up-to-date and exhaustive information on the investigation. The manner in which the applicants’ complaints have been dealt with by the authorities   had to   be considered as amounting to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3.   Referring to its finding that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had been a victim of unacknowledged detention, the Court found that this constituted a particularly grave violation of his right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 in respect of the alleged violations of Article   2, and no violation of Article   13 as regards the alleged violation of Article   3 in respect of Abdulkasim Zaurbekov.   No separate issues arose under Article   13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article   3 in respect of the applicants on account of mental suffering and in respect of the alleged violation of Article   5.   Finally, the Court held unanimously that there had been a failure to comply with Article   38 §   1   (a) of the Convention in that the Russian Government refused to submit   the documents requested by the Court.   The Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR   8,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   25,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   7,150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) Violations of Article 2 (life and investigation) Violation of Article 3 (treatment in respect of the applicants) Violation of Article 5 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 Zulpa Akhmatova and Others v. Russia (nos. 13569/02 and 13573/02) The applicants are six Russian nationals: Zulpa Akhmatova, born in 1939, Abaz Debizov, born in 1932, now deceased, Taus Serbiyeva, born in 1932, Saret Yasadova, born in 1963, and Sharpudi Bargayev, born in 1956, who live in Novye Atagi (Chechen Republic); and, Islam Serbiyev, born in 1964, who lives in Grozny. Ms Akhmatova and Mr   Debizov are the parents of Said-Magomed Debizov, born in 1967; Ms Serbiyeva and Mr   Serbiyev are the mother and brother of Iznovr Serbiyev, born in 1967; and, Ms Yasadova and Mr Bargayev are the parents of Bekkhan Bargayev, born in 1981. The families have had no news of   their relatives since 14   January 2001. They alleged that the three men disappeared after being detained by Russian servicemen during a “sweeping operation”.   They 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).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a failure to comply with Article   38 §   1   (a) of the Convention in that the Government had refused to submit documents requested by the Court.   The Court found that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform in broad daylight, equipped with military vehicles,   had been   able to move freely through military roadblocks, to check identity documents and to arrest several persons in an urban area, strongly supported the applicants’ allegation that these were   Russian servicemen. Drawing inferences from the Government’s failure, despite specific requests from the Court, to submit   documents   from the criminal investigation file which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court considered that Said-Magomed Debizov, Iznovr Serbiyev and Bekkhan Bargayev   had been   arrested on 14   January 2001 in Novye Atagi by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. There had been no reliable news of them since then and   the Government   had not submitted any explanation as to what had happened to them after their arrest. In the context of the conflict in Chechnya, when a person   had been   detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Said-Magomed Debizov, Iznovr Serbiyev and Bekkhan Bargayev or of any news of them for over seven years supported this assumption. Therefore they   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 held unanimously that there had been a violation   of   Article   2 in respect of Said-Magomed Debizov, Iznovr Serbiyev and Bekkhan Bargayev.   The Court also   held unanimously that there had been a further   violation   of Article   2   concerning the Russian authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which   the applicants’ relatives   had been killed.   Furthermore, the Court considered that the applicants had suffered, and continued to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their family members 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   as inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3.   The Court further   found that Said-Magomed Debizov, Iznovr Serbiyev and Bekkhan Bargayev   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 5.   Finally, the   Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   2, and   that no separate issues arose under Article   13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles   3 and   5.   The Court awarded EUR   8,000, each, to the mothers of Said-Magomed Debizov and Iznovr Serbiyev in respect of pecuniary damage. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   35,000 to Said-Magomed Debizov’s mother, EUR   35,000, jointly, to the mother and brother of Iznovr Serbiyev, and EUR   35,000, jointly, to Bekkhan Bargayev’s parents. For costs and expenses, the applicants were awarded EUR   9,150. (The judgment is available only in English.)     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 Bähnk v. Germany (no. 10732/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Marchenko v. Russia (no. 5507/06) Orlova v. Russia (no. 21088/06)     ***   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.