CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 novembre 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   847 27.11.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Russia 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 one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Just satisfaction Debelianovi v. Bulgaria (application no. 61951/00) The applicants, Nikola Georgiev Debelianov and his brother Ivan Georgiev Debelianov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1948 respectively and live in Sofia and Koprivshtitsa (Bulgaria).   In a judgment of 29 March 2007 the European Court of Human Rights had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), mainly on account of the fact that the applicants had not received any compensation for the loss of enjoyment of their property, coupled with their uncertainty as to what would become of it. The applicants had been prevented from taking possession of property listed as a cultural monument and used as an ethnographical museum since 1956, after their ownership had been restored by court order in 1994 under the Bulgarian National Assembly’s moratorium on the enforcement of restitution laws with regard to properties classified as cultural monuments. The Court had also considered that at that time the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In today’s judgment the Court awarded the applicants 83,000   euros   (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR   10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Just satisfaction Kalinova v. Bulgaria (no. 45116/98) The applicant, Bonka Petrova Kalinova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Nova Zagora (Bulgaria).   In a judgment of 8 November 2007 the Court had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the annulment of the applicant’s title to a house by an over-extensive application of the legislation on restitution of property nationalised during the communist regime, following proceedings brought by the former owners of the property. The Court had also considered that at that time the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In today’s judgment the Court awarded the applicant EUR   27,000 euros for pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mirchev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 71605/01) The applicants are nine Bulgarian nationals, Stoyan Mihaylov Mirchev, Stanish Bonev Panayotov, Emil Yordanov Hristov, Milko Kalev Balev (now deceased), Yordan Nikolov Yotov, Grigor Georgiev Stoichkov, Ivan Stoyanov Iliev, Georgi Mitev Karamanev and Georgi Yordanov Momchev, born in 1930, 1925, 1920, 1920, 1926, 1931, 1934, 1931 and 1924, respectively. Prior to 1989 all nine applicants had leading positions in the Council of Ministers (the government) and the Bulgarian Communist Party.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against them for abuse of office and misappropriation. Those proceedings were ultimately discontinued as, in particular, the applicants’ actions were not punishable under domestic criminal legislation at the relevant time. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court considered that the length, more than seven years and six months, of the criminal proceedings against the applicants had been excessive and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1. The applicants did not submit any claims for just satisfaction; therefore, the Court made no such award.   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 13 Slavcho Kostov v. Bulgaria (no. 28674/03) The applicant, Slavcho Dimitrov Kostov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Zhelyu Voivoda (Bulgaria).   In September 1995 Mr Kostov was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on charges of aiding and abetting murder. Released in October 1995, the criminal proceedings against him were subsequently terminated due to lack of evidence. In 1999 he brought compensation proceedings concerning in particular the conditions of his detention at Sliven Regional Investigation Service detention facility under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 1988. In 2001 the courts ruled in the applicant’s favour, finding among other things that he had been held in “extremely harsh conditions”, notably in an overcrowded cell, with no access to a toilet, bathing or other hygiene facilities. Furthermore, he had only been given food once a day and had not been allowed visits from friends or relatives. He was awarded 3,000   Bulgarian   levs   (BGN) (approximately EUR   1,538) compensation for non-pecuniary damage, less BGN   1,880 (approximately EUR   964) by way of court fees on the dismissed part of his claim.   Relying, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about the conditions of his pre-trial detention and that the compensation subsequently awarded to him on that account was inadequate, in particular given the high court fees he had had to pay.   The Court noted the domestic courts’ findings concerning the fact that the applicant had been held in “extremely harsh conditions” at Sliven detention facility. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the distress and hardship the applicant had endured had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3. Furthermore, the Court established that it was not possible to determine which part of the compensation awarded to the applicant had been intended to redress his detention at the Sliven detention facility in conditions which the domestic courts considered “extremely harsh” but it could not have been more than the sum left following payment of the court fees, namely BGN   1,120 (EUR   574). It considered that amount inadequate. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of adequate redress for the violation under Article   3. Mr   Kostov was awarded EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 Rashed v. Czech Republic (no. 298/07) The applicant, Mohamed Magdi Mansour Rashed, is an Egyptian national who was born in 1988. He is reportedly in Egypt at present.   In August 2006 the applicant applied for asylum on arriving at Prague international airport and was placed in the reception centre in the airport’s transit zone. In September 2006 he was transferred to the Velké Přílepy facility of the Ministry of the Interior, where he remained until April 2007. He was then returned to the reception centre. In June 2007 he left the country on a voluntary-return basis after his asylum application had been rejected.   The applicant alleged that his detention in the Velké Přílepy facility had been unlawful. He further alleged that his complaint about the lawfulness of his detention had not been examined speedily. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and 5 § 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention).   The Court noted that the applicant had been deprived of his liberty without any formal decision to take him into custody. He had thus been entitled to speedy and effective review by a court. But no judicial decision on the lawfulness of his detention had been given during the ten-month detention period. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Furthermore, the Court observed that the quality of the Czech asylum law in force at the relevant time had not been sufficient for it to constitute a legal basis for the applicant’s deprivation of liberty, as it did not afford adequate protection or the necessary legal certainty to prevent arbitrary interference by the public authorities with the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Court therefore found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Krivonosov v. Russia (no. 3023/03) The applicant, Yaroslav Yakovlevich Krivonosov, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Barnaul (Russia). He was the president of a private commercial bank and owns several businesses in Barnaul.   The case concerned his complaint about the length of criminal proceedings against him for fraud. He relied, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the excessive length, almost six years, of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Mr   Krivonosov was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Ismailov v. Ukraine (no. 17323/04) The applicant, Alim Ayderovich Ismailov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine).   On 14 March 2001 Mr Ismailov was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of armed robbery; he was subsequently convicted as charged. He alleged that, during the time he was held in police custody at Simferopol District Police Station on those charges, he was repeatedly kicked and punched by police officers in order to extract a confession from him. On 19 March 2001 the applicant was examined by a medical expert who reported that he had sustained bruising to his eyes and left ear and abrasions to his right temple and lower lip and concluded that those injuries had occurred four to seven days beforehand and that they had been caused by somebody’s fists or boots. The applicant lodged numerous complaints about his ill-treatment with various police officials and prosecutors but was unsuccessful. On 5   November 2002 the domestic courts issued a separate ruling which established that the applicant had sustained injuries while in police custody and suggesting that the offenders be identified and punished. Subsequently, the prosecution authorities decided on two occasions not to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned. Those decisions were quashed by the domestic courts and remitted for further enquiries. Ultimately, the investigation was terminated on 20 November 2003 due to lack of evidence; no explanation was provided as to the origin of the applicant’s injuries.   The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that he was ill-treated while in police custody and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations. He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court considered that the material before it, notably the medical report of 19 March 2001 and the court ruling of 5 November 2002, showed that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted when he had been in police custody. The Government had not contested that the injuries had occurred when the applicant had been under the control of the State authorities. Nor had the domestic authorities provided any other plausible explanation. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment while in police custody.   The Court further noted that the decisions not to bring criminal proceedings and the various remittals had resulted in it having taken about two years and two months for the authorities to commence the criminal proceedings. That delay significantly diminished any prospect of success of those proceedings. Moreover, the Court was struck by the fact that the decision of 20   November 2003 had not provided any explanation concerning the origin of the applicant’s injuries. In conclusion, despite hard evidence that the applicant had been the victim of violence in police custody, the domestic authorities had not made any serious attempt to investigate his allegations. The Court therefore held that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out a prompt and thorough investigation into the applicant’s complaint, in further violation of Article 3. It also held unanimously that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   13. Mr Ismailov was awarded EUR   6,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Miroshnik v. Ukraine (no. 75804/01) The applicant, Aleksey Vasilyevich Miroshnik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Akimovka (Ukraine).   Dismissed from the armed forces in December 1998, Mr Miroshnik subsequently brought several sets of proceedings in the military courts against the military enlistment offices and the Ministry of Defence concerning, in particular, his uniform expenses and the unlawfulness of his dismissal. In June 1999 it was ordered that the applicant be paid his uniform expenses in full; in March 2001 the claim concerning the applicant’s dismissal was returned to him for failure to submit evidence.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint, in particular, about non-enforcement of the decision in his favour with regard to his uniform expenses and the lack of independence of the military courts in the proceedings concerning his unlawful dismissal. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) 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 on account of non-enforcement of the decision to pay the applicant in full his uniform expenses. It also noted that under domestic law not only had the judges of the military courts, as servicemen belonging to the armed forces, been subordinate to the Ministry of Defence, but they had also depended on that ministry for accommodation and funding, logistical support and maintenance. Indeed, that procedure of financing was repealed in 2002. The Court therefore found a further violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the lack of the military courts’ independence in the proceedings with regard to the lawfulness of the applicant’s dismissal. Mr   Miroshnik was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine (nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03) The applicants, Igor Yevgenyevich Solovey and Anton Valentinovich Zozulya, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1981 and are currently serving, respectively, a 10-year and 14-year prison sentence for aggravated murder and robbery.   Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained, in particular, about the unlawfulness and length of their pre-trial detention.   The Court noted that: in respect of three separate periods the applicants had been detained solely on the basis of an order made by a prosecutor, who, as a party to the proceedings, could not in principle be regarded as “an independent officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power”; in respect of three other separate periods there had been no clear basis in domestic law for the applicants’ detention; and, in respect of one period of detention, which had been ordered by a court, no time-limit or reasons to justify the applicant’s detention had been given. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1 concerning the unlawfulness of the applicants’ detention on remand. It also held that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length, some two years and three months for each applicant, of their overall detention on remand. The Court awarded each applicant EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Spinov v. Ukraine (no. 34331/03) The applicant, Vitaliy Vologymyrovych Spinov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Donetsk (Ukraine).   On 29 November 2001 Mr Spinov, drunk, allegedly tried to rob a passer-by; police officers who were on patrol gave chase, caught the applicant and took him to the local police station. Released on 30   November 2001, he was subsequently convicted of attempted robbery and given a fine. The applicant alleged that police officers had ill-treated him during his arrest and, when at the police station, had beaten and handcuffed him to a window frame in order to extract a confession from him. On 4 December 2001 he was examined by a medical expert who noted bruising to his body, an abrasion on his left wrist and concussion. Following the applicant’s complaint about his ill-treatment, seven decisions were taken not to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned. Those decisions were each quashed by the domestic courts and remitted for further inquiries. In particular, the accused police officers were questioned on 22   February 2003 and admitted that they had knocked the applicant to the ground when they had given chase, had inflicted several blows to restrain him and then handcuffed him. On 3 March 2003 a medical expert issued a report which concluded that the applicant’s bruising and concussion could have occurred when he was knocked to the ground and restrained and that the abrasion on his wrist could have been caused by the handcuffs. Ultimately, the criminal proceedings against the police officers were closed on 30   July 2007 due to lack of evidence of an offence.   Relying, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation), the applicant alleged that he was ill-treated by the police during his arrest and subsequently at the police station and that the investigation into his allegations was inadequate.   The Court noted that the applicant’s injuries had been given a plausible explanation by the domestic authorities following the questioning of the police officers concerned and the subsequent medical report of 3 March 2003. The Court therefore concluded that the recourse to physical force during the applicant’s arrest had been made necessary by his own conduct and could not be held to have been excessive. There had therefore been no violation of Article 3 in that respect. The Court also held that there had been no violation of Article 3 concerning the ill-treatment at the police station as, given the information available, it was impossible to establish “beyond reasonable doubt” that aspect of the applicant’s allegation.   However, the decisions not to bring criminal proceedings and the ensuing remittals had resulted in it having taken more than four years and seven months for the authorities to commence the criminal proceedings. That delay significantly diminished any prospect of success of those proceedings. Furthermore, the domestic courts as well as the higher prosecutors had noted serious omissions in the enquiries into the applicant’s allegations and had given instructions as to the way in which the investigation should have been carried out. Given the number of remittals, it was clear that those instructions had not been followed diligently. The Court therefore concluded that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out a prompt and thorough investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment at the police station, in violation of Article   3.   Mr Spinov was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 3 Svershov v. Ukraine (no. 35231/02) The applicant, Dmitriy Viktorovich Svershov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1985 and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence in Kherson (Ukraine) for having robbed and murdered his grandmother in January 2002.   The case concerned Mr Svershov’s complaints about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand and that the domestic courts failed to consider his complaints about the unlawfulness of his detention in due time. He relied on Article   5   §§   1, 3   and   4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that the applicant’s formal pre-trial detention had lasted almost 20 months, during which two periods had been justified on the sole ground that a bill of indictment had been submitted to the trial court. The Court reiterated that it had already examined a number of cases concerning that practice and had found a violation of Article 5 § 1 on the ground that it was not based on clear and foreseeable legal provisions. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1 regarding the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention between 20 and 27 May 2002 and 10   March and 3   April 2003. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length, one year and seven months, of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, especially as the authorities had never taken into consideration the fact that the applicant had been a minor when having ordered his detention. Finally, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   4 concerning the domestic courts’ failure to review the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention despite his lawyer’s important arguments, in particular the fact that the applicant had been a minor with no previous convictions and that there had been no indication that he would reoffend if released. Mr   Svershov was awarded EUR   5,000 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 6 § 1 (fairness) Krutko v. Ukraine (No. 2) (no. 33930/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peretyatko v. Ukraine (no. 37758/05) Stadnyuk v. Ukraine (no. 30922/05) The Court found the above violations in these three cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all.     ***   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.