CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   228 19.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] . (All four are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 Lang v. Austria (application no. 28648/03) The applicant, Gerhard Lang, is an Austrian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Altmünster (Austria). He is a Jehovah’s Witness and is an elder ( Ältester ) for the community which involves providing pastoral care, leading church services and preaching. Relying in particular on Articles 4 (prohibition of forced labour), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that he had not been exempt from military service, unlike members of other recognised religious societies holding comparable religious functions. The European Court of Human Rights considered the Austrian Military Service Act discriminatory and held, by six votes to one, that, as a result of the application of that Act, Mr Lang had not been exempt from military service, in violation of Article   14 in conjunction with Article   9. The Court awarded Mr   Lang 12,664.36   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses.   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Lyubimenko v. Russia (no. 6270/06) The applicant, Aleksandr Lyubimenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and has been in detention in Volgograd (Russia) on suspicion of aggravated murder and harbouring criminals since July 2003. The criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending before the trial court. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, Mr Lyubimenko complained in particular about the inhuman conditions and excessive length of his detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of Mr   Lyubimenko having been kept in overcrowded cells, and a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of him having been detained in custody for more than five years and seven months. The Court awarded Mr   Lyubimenko EUR   8,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   Violations of Article 3 (torture and investigation) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Polonskiy v. Russia (no. 30033/05) The applicant, Aleksandr Polonskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and has been detained in Volgograd (Russia) on charges of membership of an armed criminal gang, robbery, infliction of serious injuries and murder since April 2003. Those criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending before the trial court. He was also arrested in January 2003 on charges of unlawful possession of arms and forgery for which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant alleged that he had been beaten and subjected to electric-shock treatment by the police during his arrest in January 2003 and that the investigation into his allegations had been inadequate. Further 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 the criminal proceedings against him and of his detention pending trial. Lastly, he complained, under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), about the non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour by which two of his cars, impounded by the police during the proceedings against him, should have been returned to him.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of Mr   Polonskiy having been tortured by the police, as well as on account of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length, more than five years and ten months, of Mr   Polonskiy’s detention pending trial and a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length, more than five years and ten months, of the criminal proceedings against him. Mr   Polonskiy was awarded EUR   30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Shkilev v. Russia (no. 13541/06) The applicant, Yuriy Shkilev, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and has been in detention in Volgograd (Russia) on suspicion of aggravated murder since April 2003. The criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending before the trial court. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Shkilev complained about the excessive length of his detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the excessive length, more than five years and ten months, of Mr   Shkilev’s detention, and awarded him EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.     ***   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.