CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   883 4.12.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 29 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 5 § 4 Husák v. the Czech Republic (application no. 19970/04) The applicant, Karel Husák, is a Czech national who was born in 1967 and lives in Zvole (the Czech Republic).   Mr Husák was arrested on suspicion of fraud and placed in pre-trial detention in June 2003. He made several applications for release, which were dismissed without a hearing when examined both by the first-instance courts and by the appeal courts. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), the applicant complained about the lack of a personal hearing in the proceedings concerning his release and the fact that he had been unable to comment on the reasons given by the courts to justify his continued detention.   The Court considered that since the domestic authorities had not provided the applicant with an adequate opportunity to participate in proceedings which were decisive for the continuation of his detention, the applicant had been deprived of a judicial remedy as required by the Convention. It therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   4 and held 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.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Marangos v. Cyprus (no. 12846/05) The applicant, Stavros Marangos, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1959 and lives in Nicosia.   The case concerned Mr Marangos’ complaint about being denied legal aid in administrative proceedings in which he contested the refusal of his applications to be appointed in the civil service. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court).   The Court noted that the applicant had been represented at the first-instance proceedings by the representative of his choice and that that representative had continued to represent the applicant for a significant part of the proceedings on appeal. The Court therefore concluded that in those circumstances the applicant had been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case and had not been deprived of his right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6   §   1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Adam v. Germany (no. 44036/02) The applicants are three German nationals: Eberhard Adam, his wife, Hiltrud Adam, who were both born in 1940 and live in Güstrow (Berlin); and, their son, Henri Adam, who was born in 1968 and lives in Berlin.   The case concerned, in particular, the applicants’ complaint about the excessive length of two sets of child access proceedings with regard to Henri Adam’s son, born in March 1995. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Given what had been at stake for Henri Adam, notably further contact with his young son, the Court considered that the proceedings requesting access to his son, which had lasted four years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction, had not been decided with the special diligence required in such cases. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1. Given also what had been at stake for Eberhard and Hiltrud Adam, notably access to their young grandson who had lived with them for the first three years of his life and given their embittered relationship with the child’s mother, the Court considered that the second set of proceedings requesting access to their grandson, which had lasted almost six years and nine months for two levels of jurisdiction, had not been decided either with the special diligence required. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a further violation of Article 6   §   1. The Court held unanimously that no separate issue arose under Article   8. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   2,000 to Henri   Adam and EUR   2,500, jointly, to Eberhard and Hiltrud   Adam. For costs and expenses, the Court awarded EUR   250 to Henri Adam, EUR   250 to Eberhard and Hiltrud   Adam, jointly, and EUR   2,500, jointly, to all three applicants. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Chrysoula Aggelopoulou v. Greece (no. 30293/05) The applicant, Chrysoula Aggelopoulou, is a Greek national who was born in 1939 and lives in Athens.   Ms Aggelopoulou complained about the excessive length of proceedings for defamation which resulted in her acquittal by the Athens Criminal Court in February 2005. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted for a period of five years and some seven months at first instance. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it found that this length of proceedings was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article 13 and awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Reveliotis v. Greece (no. 48775/06) The applicant, Dimitrios Reveliotis, is a Greek national who was born in 1923 and lives in Athens.   Mr Reveliotis, who was a civil servant, retired in 1982. The Public Accounting Department dismissed the applicant’s request of March 1999 for readjustment of his old-age pension. He applied to the Audit Court, which upheld his claim in July 2002. Following an appeal lodged by the Greek State, the Audit Court, sitting as a full court, quashed that judgment in part, holding that the amounts were payable only from 1 July 1999. It held that the limitation period provided for by Article 60 § 1 of Presidential Decree no. 166/2000 – limiting the retrospective nature of pensions claims against the State – began to run from the date of publication of the Audit Court’s judgment of July 2002, which constituted the decision on the applicant’s claim.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained about the manner in which the Audit Court, sitting as a full court, had set the starting date for the limitation period.   The Court noted that the setting of the date from which the applicant could obtain payment of his pension entitlement had been based solely on the time that the authorities and administrative courts had taken to reach their decisions. Although the applicant had applied for a readjustment of his pension in March 1999, the decision on his claim had not been published until three years later. The Court noted that the application of such a criterion appeared arbitrary and was likely to lead to contradictory and unjustified results. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded Mr Reveliotis EUR   15,500 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Six disappearance cases concerning Chechnya:   Violation of Article 2 (life and investigation) (Applicants) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 Violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (no. 3026/03)   Violation of Article 2 (life and investigation) (Applicants) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) (Applicants’ relatives) No violation of Article 3 (treatment) 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) Askharova v. Russia (no. 13566/02) Bersunkayeva v. Russia (no. 27233/03)   Violation of Article 2 (life and investigation) (Applicants) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 (Mr Ilyasova) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 Ilyasova and Others v. Russia (no. 1895/04)   Violation of Article 2 (life and investigation) (First three applicants) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) 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) Musikhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 27243/03)   No violation of Article 2 (life) Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 20580/04)   The applicants in the first case are four Russian nationals: Madina Bilalovna Akhmadova, born in 1954; Magomad Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1979; Kazbek Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1982; and, Turpal Musayevich Akhmadov born in 1984. They live in Grozny (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and children of Musa Mausurovich Akhmadov who has not been seen since he was detained at a military checkpoint on 6   March 2002.   The applicant in the second case is Larisa Askharova, a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in the village, Serzhen-Yurt (Chechen Republic). She has had no news of her husband, Sharani Askharov, born in 1956, since he was taken away from their home on 18   May 2001 by armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks.   The applicant in the third case is Raisa Shamayevna Bersunkayeva, a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). She has had no news of her son, Artur Bersunkayev, born in 1979, since he was taken away from the family home on 13   June 2001 by armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks.   The applicants in the fourth case are four Russian nationals: Mingi Khalidovna Ilyasova, born in 1952; Ayub Abubakarovich Ilyasov, born in 1973; Markha Abubakarovna Ilyasova, born in 1975; and, Maret Abubakarovna Ilyasova, born in 1978. They live in Mesker-Yurt (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, brother and sisters of Adam Abubakarovich Ilyasov, born in 1983, who has not been seen since he was taken away from the family home on 15   November 2002 by armed men wearing masks and uniforms.   The applicants in the fifth case are 11 Russian nationals: Yakhita Ibragimovna Musikhanova, born in 1951; Vakha Idisovich Musikhanov, born in 1949; Luiza Iznorovna Umysheva (Musikhanova), born in 1975; Markha Vakhidovna Musikhanova, born in 1995; Seda Vakhidovna Musikhanova, born in 1997; Nokha Vakhidovich Musikhanov, born in 2001; Naib Vakhidovich Musikhanov, born in 2002; Asiyat Idisovna Musikhanova, born in 1953; Valid Vakhayevich Musikhanov, born in 1980; Roman Vakhayevich Musikhanov; born in 1983; and, Timur Vakhayevich Musikhanov, born in 1986. They live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the parents, wife, children, brothers and aunt of Vakhid Musikhanov, born in 1976, who has not been seen since he was taken away from the family home on 9   November 2002 by armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks.   The applicants in the sixth case are seven Russian nationals: Zaynap Zhazhayevna Tagirova, born in 1950; Taus Daudovich Tagirov, born in 1950; Musa Tausovich Tagirov, born in 1982; Zarema Abdullayevna Tagirova, born in 1983; Madina Tausovna Tagirova, born in 1983; Milana Tausovna Tagirova, born in 1981; and, Ratkha Tausovna Tagirova, born in 1972. They live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the parents, wife, brother and sisters of Movsar Tausovich Tagirov, born in 1978, who has not been seen since he was taken away from the family home on 7   February 2003 by armed men wearing camouflage uniforms.   All the applicants alleged that their relatives disappeared after being detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They relied, in particular, 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).   In the cases of Askharova , Bersunkayeva , Ilyasova and Others and Musikhanova and Others , the Court considered that the applicants had presented a coherent and convincing picture of their relatives’ abduction. The applicants, mostly eyewitnesses to the incidents, and other eyewitnesses including family and/or neighbours, all stated that the abductors had acted in a manner similar to that of a security operation and had spoken Russian without an accent. The servicemen had also, on the whole, used military vehicles which could not have been available to paramilitary groups. In all four cases, the Court found the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform, equipped with armoured vehicles, were able to move freely during curfew hours and apprehend people at their homes strongly supported the applicants’ allegation that the men had been State agents.   The Court found that those elements in particular in the above four cases strongly supported the allegation that the applicants’ relatives had been apprehended by 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 events in question, the Court considered that the applicants’ relatives had been arrested by Russian servicemen during security operations.   In the case of Akhmadova and Others , the Court considered it established, on the basis of the eyewitness statements and official documents (in particular letters from the military prosecution authorities) in the case file, that Musa Akhmadov had been detained by a group of servicemen at a military road block. He had then been handed over to the military servicemen stationed at the regiment headquarters who transferred him to the Federal Security Service based at the same camp.   There had been no reliable news of those five men since their disappearances 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’ relatives or any news of them for more than six or seven years corroborated that assumption. Therefore the Court found that the five men had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen. In the cases of Akhmadova and Others , Askharova and Ilyasova and Others, the Court, noting that the authorities had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, concluded that there had therefore been a violation of Article 2 in respect of all three of the applicants’ relatives. In the cases of Bersunkayeva and Musikhanova and Others , noting the absence of any plausible explanation at all on the part of the Government, the Court therefore found that Russia had been responsible for the death of the applicants’ two relatives and also concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2.   However, in the case of Tagirova and Others , the Court noted that all but one of the witness statements submitted by the applicants had been anonymous. Furthermore, the group of armed men who had abducted the applicants’ relative had been wearing uniforms without recognisable insignia. The abductors had arrived on foot and no military vehicle had allegedly been seen in the vicinity. Indeed, the applicant’s relative, a future officer of the Chechen Republic special task force, could have been, as suggested by the Government, the target of illegal armed groups fighting against federal forces in the Chechen Republic. The Court therefore found that the applicants had not submitted persuasive evidence to support their allegations that Russian servicemen had been implicated in the abduction of their relative. Nor had it therefore been established “beyond reasonable doubt” that Movsar Tagirov had been deprived of his life by State agents and, in such circumstances, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article   2.   In all six cases, the Court further held that there had been violations of Article   2 concerning the Russian authorities’ failure to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared.   Furthermore, with the exception of the case of Tagirova and Others and eight of the applicants in the case of Musikhanova and Others , the Court found 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. However, the Court found that it had not been established exactly how Sharani Askharov and Artur Bersunkayev had died and whether they had been subjected to ill-treatment and therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 3 in respect of the alleged ill-treatment of those two men.   The Court found that the applicants’ relatives in the first five cases 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.   The Court also found in the first five cases that there had been a violation of Article   13 as regards the alleged violation of Article   2. In the case of Ilyasova and Others it found a further violation of Article 13 as regards the alleged violation of Article   3. It held, however, that there had been no violation of Article 13 as regards the alleged violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants’ relatives in the cases of Askharova and Bersunkayeva , and no violation of this provision as regards eight of the applicants in the case of Musikhanova and Others .   Lastly, the Court held unanimously that in the cases of Akhmadova and Others , Askharova, Bersunkayeva and Musikhanova and Others 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 the case of Akhmadova and Others , the Court awarded EUR   3,101, jointly, to Musa Akhmadov’s wife and youngest son, in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   35,000 to the applicants, jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   8,150 for costs and expenses.   In the case of Askharova , the Court awarded Sharani Askharov’s wife EUR   6,440 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   6,150 for costs and expenses.   In the case of Bersunkayeva , the Court awarded Artur Bersunkayev’s mother EUR   35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,700 for costs and expenses.   In the case of Ilyasova and Others v. Russia , the Court awarded Adam Ilyasov’s mother EUR   4,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   35,000 to the applicants, jointly, and EUR   6,000 for costs and expenses.   In the case of Musikhanova and Others , the Court awarded EUR   15,000, jointly, to Vakhid Musikhanov’s wife and children in respect of pecuniary damage. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   15,000, jointly, to his parents, EUR   20,000, jointly, to his wife and four children, and EUR   1,000, each, to his aunt and brothers. For costs and expenses, the applicants were awarded EUR   7,150.   In the case of Tagirova and Others , the Court awarded, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR   3,000, jointly, to Movsar Tagirov’s parents, EUR   3,000 to his wife, and EUR   850, each, to his brother and sisters, and EUR   3,650 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bakhitov v. Russia (no. 4026/03) The applicant, Nikolay Khayrullovich Bakhitov, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence in the Ryazan region (Russia) for, in particular, murder and robbery.   Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length, almost seven years, of which four years and one month come under the Court’s jurisdiction, of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Mr   Bakhitov was awarded EUR   2,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Belashev v. Russia (Nº 28617/03) The applicant, Vladimir Ilyich Belashev, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lived in Moscow until his arrest in April 1998 on suspicion of participating in the bombings of two statues of the Tsars Nicholas II and Peter the Great. He was subsequently convicted of, in particular, terrorism and unlawful production of weapons and explosive devices and sentenced to 11   years’ imprisonment, reduced by six months on appeal in February 2003.   Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Belashev complained, in particular, about his appalling conditions of detention from 19   April 2002 to 11   April 2003 in a detention facility in Moscow. He complained in particular about severe overcrowding and such shortage of beds that detainees had had to sleep in shifts. He also complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and the lack of a public hearing in his case, in violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that it had frequently found a violation of Article 3 on account of overcrowding in Russian detention facilities and that the Government had not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the applicant’s case. The fact that the applicant had been obliged for approximately one year to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as so many other inmates had been in itself sufficient to have caused distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding 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. Mr Belashev had also most likely contracted a serious skin disease while in detention, which, although not in itself capable of justifying the notion of “inhuman” treatment, was of relevance in showing that his conditions of detention (the overriding factor remaining overcrowding) had gone beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 19   April 2002 to 11   April 2003.   The Court further held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length, approximately four years and ten months, of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and on account of the lack of a public hearing in his case. Mr   Belashev was awarded EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   220 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 2 (life and investigation) Violation of Article 13 Gandaloyeva v. Russia (no. 14800/04) The applicant is a Russian national, Lyuba Gandaloyeva, who was born in 1942 and lives in Achkhoy-Martin (Chechnya).   The case concerned Ms Gandaloyeva’s allegation that her husband, Alaudin Ayubovich Gandaloyev, born in 1938, was killed by Russian servicemen on 17   September 2003 in woods where he had worked as a forester. His son, Emir Gandaloyev, who had driven him to work that day survived the attack and brought his father’s body to Chechen police officers. The death certificate issued noted that the applicant’s husband had died as a result of gunshot wounds to his head and body. In the days following the incident a radio announcement and newspaper article stated that federal forces had killed two “rebel fighters”, one of whom had been Alaudin Gandaloyev. The applicant also claimed that the authorities’ ensuing investigation into the incident was ineffective. She relied, in particular, on Articles   2 (right to life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted, in particular, that the applicant’s allegation had been supported by her son’s eyewitness statement and the media coverage of the incident. Indeed, a decision of Achkhoy-Martan District Court on 24 November 2004 had even considered that the investigation had obtained sufficient information to conclude that military servicemen had been involved in the murder. Furthermore, there had been a discrepancy between the Government’s suggestion that illegal armed groups could have been involved in the murder and the investigators’ conclusions that military servicemen had been implicated in the crime. The Court considered that those elements in particular strongly supported the allegation that Alaudin Gandaloyev had been killed by 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 events in question, the Court found that the applicant’s husband had been killed by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation. In the absence of any justification by the Government, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the killing of the applicant’s husband.   The Court further found that despite the numerous investigative measures taken by the inter-district prosecutor’s office, such as examining the crime scene and the body and ordering ballistic expertises as well as questioning Emir Gandaloyev and employees of the forestry agency, after the transfer of the case to the military prosecutor’s office, the ensuing investigation had been far from satisfactory. In particular, the officers who had allegedly opened fire on Alaudin Gandaloyev had never been identified or questioned. The applicant, although granted victim status in the proceedings, had only been informed of the suspension and reopening of the proceedings and not of any significant developments. The Court therefore 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 surrounding the murder of the applicant’s husband. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   2.   Mrs Gandaloyeva was awarded EUR   35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,650 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Umayeva v. Russia (no. 1200/03) The applicant is a Russian national, Lipatu Makhmudovna Umayeva, who was born in 1959 and lives in Grozny. She has a third-degree disability.   In October 1999 hostilities resumed between Russian forces and Chechen armed groups and Grozny came under heavy aerial and artillery bombardment. The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that on 23   January 2000 she and a group of other civilians, who were tying to leave the fighting through what they had been told was a humanitarian corridor, came under attack; the applicant received several shell and bullet wounds. She continues to suffer from the consequences of those wounds and has difficulty walking. The applicant claimed that she was wounded by the Russian military and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the attack.   She relied, in particular, on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 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).   The Court noted in particular the applicant’s insistence that she and other residents of the Staropromyslovskiy district had been informed of a safe exit route from the fighting and had followed it on 23 January 2003, having taken steps to identify themselves as civilians. In her statements to the Court and to the domestic investigation she had consistently claimed that the shelling and shooting had come from the direction of the Russian troops, as well as from helicopters. In support of her allegations she had submitted a sketch map of the scene of the incident, indicating the place where she had been wounded and the direction from which the attack had come, namely a canning factory where Russian troops had been temporarily stationed at the time. She also submitted four witness statements corroborating her allegations. Moreover, the ensuing domestic investigation had accepted the applicant’s submissions and even concluded in August 2002 that she had been wounded while trying to leave Grozny through the humanitarian corridor. Indeed, the Government had not denied that Russian troops had been stationed in the canning factory at that time but suggested that they had not been able to identify which particular military units had been there. The Court therefore accepted that the applicant had been attacked in the circumstances she had described and found it established that she had been wounded as a result of the use of lethal force by State agents. Noting that the authorities had not justified that use of lethal force by their agents, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the attack on Mrs   Umayeva.   The Court further noted that the investigation had not apparently attempted to obtain general information about the operations, commanders and military units involved in the Staropromyslovskiy district on 23 January 2000, or to identify and question those who could have been aware of the circumstances of the attack. Furthermore, the investigation had not contacted Emercom’s field hospital, situated very near to the fighting, where the applicant and other residents had been given first aid, in order to obtain additional information about the incident. Most importantly, no efforts had been made to find out more about the announcement of the “safe passage” for civilians on 23 January 2000 or to identify anyone among the military or civil authorities who had been responsible for civilian safety. Indeed, nothing had been done to explain why the military had not taken into consideration the “safe passage” when planning and executing their mission. The investigation, repeatedly suspended and resumed and plagued by inexplicable delays, has been pending for many years without tangible results. Lastly, the applicant, granted victim status, has had no access to the case file and has not been properly informed of the investigation’s progress. The Court therefore 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 of the attack on the applicant.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   2 and that no separate issues arose under Article   3. Finally, it held that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article   34 and Article   38   §   1   (a).   The Court awarded Mrs   Umayeva EUR   4,736 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 1,783 pounds sterling (approximately EUR   2,100) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) Trofimov v. Russia (no. 1111/02) The applicant, Gennadiy Mikhaylovich Trofimov, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Apatity (Russia).   The case concerned Mr Trofimov’s complaint, in particular, about the domestic courts’ failure to secure the attendance of a prosecution witness at his trial on charges of drug trafficking for which he was convicted and sentenced to 11   years and three months’ imprisonment. He relied on Article   6   §§   1 (right to a fair trial) and 6 §   3   (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   The Court noted that the only other direct witness to the exchange of drugs and distribution of the proceeds between the applicant and his accomplice, Sk., had been S., Sk.’s partner. Indeed, the domestic courts had emphasised that S.’s pre-trial statement had been crucial in establishing the applicant’s guilt. However, the authorities had not given the applicant the opportunity to confront S. at any stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the authorities’ failure to summon witness   S had restricted the rights of the defence, in violation of Article   6   §   1 taken together with Article   6   §   3   (d). The Court considered it unnecessary to examine the remaining part of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 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) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Chistyakov v. Russia (no. 41395/04) Gorbunov v. Russia (no. 9593/06) Lyudmila Dubinskaya v. Russia (no. 5271/05) Magomedov v. Russia (no. 20111/03) Mozhayeva v. Russia (no. 26759/03) Roman Ponomarev v. Russia (no. 31105/05) Semochkin v. Russia (no. 3885/04) Trufanova v. Russia (no. 11756/06) Voronin v. Russia (no. 40543/04) Yevdokiya Kuznetsova v. Russia (no. 8355/07)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Siverin v. Russia (no. 24664/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Tishkevich v. Russia (no. 2202/05) The Court found the above violations and non-violation in these cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all, and, in the cases of Chistyakov, Magomedov and Tishkevich , concerning the supervisory review of those judgments.   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Examiliotis v. Greece ( No. 3) (no. 44132/06)     ***   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 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.