CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 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 } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .s2A13E303 { color:#2e97d3 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB12174C2 { color:#633277 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sAB070DD8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:180pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s480C2F3D { color:#fad272 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   207 12.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Greece, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 1 8     7   Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article   14 in conjunction with Article 9   Gütl v. Austria ( application no. 49686/99) Löffelmann v. Austria (no. 42967/98) The applicants are two Austrian nationals: Markus Gütl who was born in 1977 and lives in Belgrade (Serbia); and, Philemon Löffelmann who was born in 1976 and lives in Maissau (Austria). They are members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Relying in particular on Articles   9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and     14 (prohibition of discrimination)   of the European Convention on Human Rights , they complained of having been forced to perform civil service in lieu of their military service while members of other recognised religious societies holding religious functions comparable to theirs were exempted from that requirement. The European European Court of Human Rights of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   14 in conjunction with Article     9 of the Convention on Human Rights on account of discrimination against the applicants on the ground of their religion. The Court awarded Mr   Gütl 4,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 8,462.30 EUR in respect of cost and expenses and Mr   Löffelmann , 4,000   EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 10,698.53 EUR in respect of cost and expenses (The judgment s is are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Plakhteyev and Plakhteyeva v. Ukraine (no. 20347/03) The applicants, Fyodor and Valentina Plakhteyevi, son and mother, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1958 and 1931 respectively and live in Beryozovka (Ukraine). They complained of having been denied access to a court before which they wanted to claim damages for a wrongful fine and the unjustified seizure, lengthy holding and deterioration of their lorry and its load of wheat. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court awarded each applicant EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Two violations of Article 8 Sergey Volosyuk v. Ukraine (no. 1291/03) The applicant, Sergey Volosyuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a 14-year prison sentence in Druzhkivka (Ukraine) for murder and aggravated robbery. Relying on Article   5   § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against him as a whole. He also complained that throughout his detention on remand his requests for release pending trial had not been examined by a court, in breach of Article     5     §     4. Further relying on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), he alleged that officials had monitored his correspondence during his detention on remand and that he had been placed in a disciplinary cell for having sent a letter which bypassed the detention centre’s official channels. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §§     3 and     4 . It also held unanimously that there had been a and a fur ther violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length, almost five years, of the criminal proceedings against Mr   Volosyuk. Finally, it The Court   also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   8 in respect of the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence, and a further violation of the same article in respect of the disciplinary punishment imposed on him. The Court awarded Mr   Volosyuk EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (f), 4 and 5 Svetlorusov v. Ukraine (no. 2929/05) The applicant, Grigoriy Svetlorusov, is a Belarus national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kyiv (Ukraine). Wanted for swindling in Belarus, Mr Svetlorusov was arrested in December 2004 by the Kyiv police at the request of the Belarus authorities. Granted refugee status, he was ultimately released in November 2005. Relying on Articles     3 and     6     §     1,   he complained that, if extradited to Belarus, he would risk torture and an unfair trial. Further relying on Article     5   §§   1, 4   and     5 (right to liberty and security), he alleged that his arrest in Kyiv on the basis of an arrest warrant from Belarus had been unlawful, that his applications for release had not been examined promptly and effectively by a court and that he had had no right to compensation for his detention. The Court noted that the Ukrainian authorities had refused the applicant’s extradition to Belarus and that the extradition proceedings had been discontinued; it therefore declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints under Articles     3 and     6. However, it reiterated that Ukrainian legislation did not provide for a procedure that was sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application to avoid the risk of arbitrary detention pending extradition and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1   (f). The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   5   §§   4 and   5. Mr   Svetlorusov was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Vergelskyy v. Ukraine (no. 19312/06) The applicant, Mykola Vergelskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Romny (Ukraine). In March 2004 he was detained on suspicion of having killed an acquaintance of his at his house. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint in particular that, while in custody, the police beat him and stamped on his feet until he fell unconscious. He also complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). Noting in particular the medical evidence, the applicant’s testimony and the lack of any plausible alternative explanation as to the origin of his injuries, the Court concluded that there was a reasonable suspicion that those injuries might have been caused by the police. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr   Vergelskyy while in police custody and a further violation of the same article on account of the ineffective investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article     13 on account of the excessive length, over four years, of the criminal proceedings against the applicant which are still pending at pre-trial stage. Mr   Vergelskyy was awarded EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (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 Kalinichenko v. Russia (no. 19136/04) Zakharov v. Russia (no. 51380/07) The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the quashing of judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length) Veretennikov v. Russia (no. 8363/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Krasovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 36772/04) Lebedintseva v. Ukraine (no. 37208/04) Otychenko and Fedishchenko v. Ukraine (nos. 1755/05 and 25912/06)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 ( length) Matkivska v. Ukraine (no. 38683/04) Vasylyeva and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 39876/05, 35532/06 and 37715/06) Voskoboynyk v. Ukraine (no. 39874/05) The Court found the above violations in these seven cases concerning the State’s failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all. In the case of Veretennikov , it also found a further violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings against his former employer concerning claims for reinstatement and damages.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicant in the case of Beckas   also relie d   on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Beckas v. Greece (no. 24454/07)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Michailidou and Others v. Greece (no. 21091/07) Nikitaki and Others v. Greece (no. 51380/07)     ***   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.