CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; 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   166 3.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   10 March 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will deliver two Grand Chamber judgments in the cases of Bykov v. Russia (application no. 4378/02) and Paladi v. Moldova (no. 39806/05) in a public hearing on Tuesday 10 March 2009 at, respectively, 10 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. (local time) in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg.   Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Tuesday 10 March 2009 at 10 a.m.   Bykov v. Russia The applicant, Anatoliy Petrovich Bykov, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Krasnoyarsk (Russia). He was chairman of the board of the Krasnoyarsk Aluminium Plant from 1997 to 1999. At the time of his arrest in October 2000 he was a major shareholder and an executive of a corporation called OAO   Krasenergomash-Holding. He was also a member of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Parliamentary Assembly.   The case concerns, in particular, Mr Bykov’s complaint about a covert recording used as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him and also the length of his pre-trial detention.   In September 2000 Mr   Bykov allegedly ordered   V., a member of his entourage, to kill Mr   S., a former business associate. V.   did not comply with the order, but on 18   September 2000 he reported the applicant to the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”).   The FSB and the police decided to conduct a covert operation to obtain evidence of the applicant’s intention to murder   S. On 29   September 2000 the police staged the discovery of two dead bodies at S.’s home. They officially announced in the media that one of those killed had been identified as S. The other man was his business partner, Mr   I.   On 3   October 2000, V.   went to see the applicant at his home. He carried a hidden radio-transmitting device while a police officer outside received and recorded the transmission. Following the instructions he had been given, V.   engaged the applicant in conversation, telling him that he had carried out the murder. As proof he handed the applicant several objects borrowed from   S. and   I. The police obtained a 16-minute recording of the conversation between V.   and the applicant.   On 4   October 2000 the applicant’s house was searched. The objects V.   had given him were seized. The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. He was charged with conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to acquire, possess and handle firearms.   The applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged several times and his numerous appeals and requests for release were rejected because of the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that he might abscond and bring pressure to bear on the witnesses.   Two voice experts were appointed to examine the recording of the applicant’s conversation with   V. They found that V.   had shown subordination to the applicant, that the applicant had shown no sign of mistrusting V.’s confession to the murder and that he had insistently questioned V.   on the technical details of its execution. They established that V.   and the applicant had a close relationship and that the applicant played an instructive role in the conversation.   On 19   June 2002 the applicant was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment. He was conditionally released on five years’ probation. The sentence was upheld on appeal on 1   October 2002.   On 22   June 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the case in supervisory proceedings. It found the applicant guilty of “incitement to commit a crime involving a murder”, and not “conspiracy to murder”. The rest of the judgment, including the sentence, remained unchanged.   Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleges that his pre-trial detention was excessively long and that it was successively extended without any indication of relevant and sufficient reasons. Under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, he complained of the unfairness of the proceedings against him, the police having set a trap to trick him into incriminating himself in his conversation with   V. and the court having allowed the recording of the conversation as evidence in the trial. The applicant also complains that the covert operation involved an unlawful intrusion into his home and that the interception and recording of his conversation with Mr   V. amounted to interference with his private life and his correspondence, in violation of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21   December 2001 and declared admissible on 7   September 2006. On 22   November 2007 the Chamber to which the case was assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber [1] . A hearing was held in Strasbourg on 18 June 2008.     Tuesday 10 March 2009 at 10.30 a.m.   Paladi v. Moldova Ion Paladi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău. He was Deputy Mayor of Chişinău and a university lecturer. In 2006 he was declared as having a second-degree disability.   The case concerns, in particular, Mr   Paladi’s complaint that, despite doctors’ recommendations, he was not given appropriate medical care while in detention pending trial.   On 24   September 2004 Mr   Paladi was taken into custody on a 30-day detention order and placed in the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (the “CFECC”) on suspicion of abuse of position and power. He stayed there until 25   February 2005 when he was transferred to Remand Centre   no.   3 of the Ministry of Justice in Chişinău.   Mr   Paladi suffers from a number of serious illnesses (diabetes, angina, heart disease, hypertension, chronic bronchitis, pancreatitis and hepatitis) and, while in detention, was examined by various doctors who all recommended medical supervision. Certain doctors also considered that the applicant should undergo operations, which could only be carried out in specialised units.   According to Mr   Paladi, the CFECC had no medical staff until late February 2005. He also claimed that he, his wife and lawyer had complained to the authorities about his insufficient medical treatment, but had only been able to obtain sporadic medical visits and assistance in emergencies.   As a result of a medical report drawn up in March 2005, Mr   Paladi was transferred to a prison hospital where, on 20   May 2005, a neurologist from the Republican Neurology Centre of the Ministry of Health (the   “RNC”) recommended hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy. The director of the hospital informed the domestic courts a total of seven times between May and September 2005 that the HBO therapy had not been carried out because his hospital did not have the necessary equipment for such specialised neurological treatment.   In September 2005 a medical board of the Ministry of Health examined Mr   Paladi and, at their recommendation, Centru District Court ordered his transfer to the RNC. Mr   Paladi received HBO therapy, which produced positive results, at the Republican Clinical Hospital and that hospital prescribed a continuation of the therapy until 28   November. In the meantime, however, the   RNC had written a letter on 9   November stating that Mr   Paladi’s condition had stabilised and recommending his release from hospital. No reference having been made to HBO therapy in that letter, on 10   November the district court ordered the applicant’s transfer back to the prison hospital.   On the evening of 10   November the European Court of Human Rights indicated by facsimile to the Moldovan Government an interim measure under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court, stating that the applicant should not be transferred from the   RNC until the Court had had the opportunity to examine the case. On 11   November 2005 a Deputy Section Registrar of the Court tried to contact by telephone the Government Agent’s Office in Moldova, without success. The same day Mr   Paladi was transferred to the prison hospital. Finally, following requests by the applicant’s lawyer and the Agent of the Government, the district court ordered the applicant to be transferred back to the   RNC on 14   November. The applicant alleged, corroborated by a television news report, that he was made to wait six hours before being admitted to the RNC. According to the doctors, that delay was due to the fact that Mr   Paladi had arrived at the   RNC without a medical file.   Between 5   October 2004 and 11   October 2005 Mr   Paladi made a total of 10   requests to be released, which were all refused, notably because the courts considered that he might reoffend or abscond, tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. On 1   June 2005, the examination of his case was suspended because he was considered as being unfit to attend hearings. Ultimately, on 15   December 2005, Mr   Paladi’s detention pending trial was replaced with an obligation not to leave the country.   Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and   5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr   Paladi complains about the unlawfulness of his detention pending trial and that, during that time, he was not given appropriate medical care. He also alleges that the authorities failed to comply swiftly with the Court’s interim measures ordered under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court, in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition) of the Convention.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9   November 2005.   In its judgment of 10   July 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 as regards the lack of proper medical care provided to the applicant at each stage of his detention. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1 on account of the applicant’s detention pending trial after 22   October 2004, when the court order for his detention had expired. Lastly, the Court held, by six votes to one, that Moldova’s failure to comply as a matter of urgency with the interim measure it had indicated had jeopardised Mr   Paladi’s ability to pursue his application, in violation of Article   34.   On 30   January 2008, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber [2] at the Government’s request. The Grand Chamber held a hearing in Strasbourg on 14 May 2008.     ***   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] 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.