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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   175 5.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BYCHKOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Bychkov v. Russia (application no. 39420/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the conditions in which Mr Bychkov had been detained between 2000 and 2003.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr   Bychkov 15,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Pavel Bychkov, a tax police officer, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving a twelve-and-a-half-year prison sentence for banditry, robbery and abuse of power. He was held in two pre-trial detention facilities between 5 June 2000 and 9 September 2003, when he was transferred to a correctional colony to serve his sentence. The criminal proceedings against him were subject to extensive media coverage.   Mr Bychkov was held in a number of different cells in the two pre-trial detention facilities. His version of the conditions of his detention there differed significantly from that provided by the Government. While the Government submitted that, most of the time, the capacity of the cells in which he was held allowed for more detainees than there were in reality, Mr Bychkov maintained that during certain periods he was placed in overcrowded cells. In particular he submitted that for a period he shared a cell measuring 48 square metres with up to seventy other detainees, and another cell, measuring 36 square metres, with 38 other detainees; the inmates had to take shifts to sleep.   In support for his allegations, Mr Bychkov submitted written statements from two fellow detainees with whom he shared the cells during part of the period in question. The Government submitted no information about the size of the cells, and did not provide sufficient information about how many detainees there had been in each cell during the whole examined period.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21   October 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Bychkov complained of the inadequate conditions in which he was detained pending his trial in the context of the criminal proceedings against him.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court observed that the Government had not provided any information on the measurements of the cells, or information about how it had calculated the average number of detainees per cell for the whole period in question. The Court found that given the failure of the Government to submit this information without a satisfactory explanation, it would base its analysis on the submissions by Mr Bychkov and the two written reports of his two inmates.   Having noted that the living area per detainee had varied between 0,65 and 1,3 square metres, the Court referred to its earlier case law on the subject, in which it had found a violation of Article 3 for lack of personal space afforded to detainees, and held accordingly that - in the present case too - there had been a violation of Article 3.   ***   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 Convention, 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.