CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 mars 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   178 5.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Germany and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1]   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 2 No violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 6 § 1 Colak and Tsakiridis v. Germany (application nos. 77144/01 and 35493/05) The applicant, Ayse Colak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Wiesbaden (Germany). Relying on Articles   2 (right to life), 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Colak complained that she had been denied a fair trial in proceedings she had brought against her doctor for failing to inform her that her companion was suffering from AIDS and that the domestic courts had refused to award her compensation for not knowing that she was HIV-positive. The Court considered that the domestic courts had had sufficient regard to Ms Colak’s right to life and physical integrity; it further found that their assessment of the facts had not been arbitrary and that the principle of equality of arms had been complied with. Consequently, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   2 of the Convention and no violation of Article   6   §   1. It further held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article   8. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 2 (life and investigation) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 Khalitova v. Russia (no. 39166/04) The applicant, Luiza Khalitova, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). On 11 September 2000 her husband, Lecha Khazhmuradov, while working in the woods near his home village, was shot dead by a group of armed men equipped with armoured personnel carriers in broad daylight. Relying on Articles   2 (right to life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained that her husband had been killed by Russian servicemen, that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter, and that there had been no effective remedies available to her in respect of those violations.   The Court found it established that Lecha Khazhmuradov had been killed on 11 September 2000 by State agents. Noting that the Russian Government had not provided any plausible explanation at all, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicant’s husband. It further held that there had been a violation of Article   2 relating to the authorities’ failure to carry out a thorough and effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant’s husband had been killed. Lastly, it held that there had been a violation of Article   13 in conjunction with Article   2. The Court awarded Mrs   Khalitova 35,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,400 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     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) Bozlar v. Germany (no. 7634/05)     ***   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.