CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 février 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC6C0EBF2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   103 12.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Greece and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11   Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     No violation of Article 5 § 3 Spas Spasov v. Bulgaria (application no. 31646/02) The applicant, Spas Petrov Spasov, was a Bulgarian national who was born in 1951 and lived in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). He died in 2003. His heirs, Stoyanka Spasova, Petar Spasov and Lazar Spasov, informed the Court that they wished to pursue the application. In 2001 the applicant, a lorry driver, was placed in police custody and subsequently in pre-trial detention for misappropriation of goods. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained, in particular, that the length of his detention, namely ten months and 23 days, had been excessive. The European Court of Human Rights held, in particular, that the Bulgarian courts had provided “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons in their decisions for keeping the applicant in detention, and found no serious shortcomings in the conduct of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Two violations of Article 5 § 4 Giosakis v. Greece (No. 1) (42778/05)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 Two violations of Article 5 § 4 Giosakis v. Greece (No. 2) (36205/06) The applicant is Iakovos-Pavlos Giosakis, an archimandrite. He was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Korydallos Prison (Greece). The case of Giosakis v. Greece (No. 1) concerned his complaints about his pre-trial detention in the course of criminal proceedings against him for incitement to handle, and handling, stolen antiquities, including icons removed from various churches on the island of Kithira (Greece). In the case of Giosakis v. Greece (No.   2) , the applicant complained about his pre-trial detention in the course of criminal proceedings against him for incitement to abuse of public office, offering bribes to a judge, incitement to form a criminal organisation, fraud and money laundering. In both cases Mr Giosakis relied, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   In the case of Giosakis v. Greece (No. 1) , the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the Indictment Division’s refusal of an application for leave to appear in person, and another violation of the same Article in connection with the obligation to decide “speedily” when considering an application by the applicant for release.   In the case of Giosakis v. Greece (No. 2) , the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 in that it had been impossible for the applicant to appear before the investigating judge when submitting his first application for release, and a violation of the same Article in connection with the obligation to decide “speedily” when considering the lawfulness of the detention. It further held that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court awarded the applicant a total of 8,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and a total of EUR   6,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   (1 st applicant) Three violations of Article 3 (treatment) (1 st applicant) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) (1 st applicant) No violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia (no. 3811/02) The applicants, Aleksandr Denisenko, born in 1982, and Vitaliy Bogdanсhikov, born in 1979, are Russian nationals who are serving prison sentences in the Saratov Region (Russia) for aggravated robbery, grievous bodily harm and hooliganism committed in concert. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   5 (right to liberty and security), they complained in particular about the conditions and unlawfulness of their detention. Mr Denisenko also alleged that he was ill-treated while in police custody in 2001 and that no effective investigation was carried out into his allegation. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the ill-treatment to which Mr   Denisenko – handcuffed to a hot radiator for several hours during police custody in 2001 – had been subjected by the police and a further violation of the same Article concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his allegations of that ill-treatment. The Court also found a violation of Article   3 on account of the conditions of Mr   Denisenko’s detention in remand centre IZ-77/2 in Moscow – where he had lived, slept and used the toilet in the same cell as many other inmates from 5 March 2001 to 15 July 2002 – and a further violation of the same provision on account of the conditions of his confinement during the court hearings of his case at the Khamovniki District Court in June 2002, where he had been detained in an overcrowded, poorly ventilated and poorly lit cell without food, drink, or access to the toilet. Lastly, the Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article   5   §   1 as regards Mr   Denisenko’s pre-trial detention from 12   March to 27   April 2001, and no violation of Article 5 § 3. The Court awarded Mr   Denisenko EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application concerning Mr   Bogdanсhikov was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) Samokhvalov v. Russia (no. 3891/03) The applicant, Roman Aleksandrovich Samokhvalov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence for theft and premeditated murder in the Kurgan Region (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair hearing), he complained about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) on account of the appeal hearing of 1   July 2002 in Mr   Samokhvalov’s case having been held in his absence. He was awarded EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dimitar and Anka Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria (no. 56753/00) Mihaylovi v. Bulgaria (no. 6189/03) Miteva v. Bulgaria (no. 60805/00) Simova and Georgiev v. Bulgaria (no. 55722/00) The Court found the above violation in these four cases on account of the applicants having   lost their property following the application of restitution legislation.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bodrov v. Russia (no. 17472/04) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant by way of supervisory review.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mikhaylovich v. Russia (no. 30019/05)     ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.