CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 avril 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   303 9.4.2009   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 five Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (The judgments are available only in English.)   One repetitive case and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Grigoryevskikh v. Russia (application no. 22/03) The applicant, Aleksandr Grigoryevskikh, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Gribanovskiy (Russia). Arrested in January 2001 on suspicion of robbery, theft and unlawful possession of arms, Mr   Grigoryevskikh complained about the appalling conditions of his detention pending trial and the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   6   §   3   (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 27   August 2001 to 12   July 2002 in detention facility IZ-36/2   in Borisoglebsk (Russia), and a violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) concerning the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court of Russia. Mr   Grigoryevskikh was awarded 6,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Violation of Article 8 Kolesnichenko v. Russia (no. 19856/04) The applicant, Aleksey Kolesnichenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Perm (Russia). At the relevant time he was a practising advocate and member of the Perm Regional Bar. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr   Kolesnichenko complained about the search of his home and office in the context of criminal proceedings against one of his clients. The Court found, in particular, that the search carried out had not been “necessary in a democratic society”, in breach of Article   8. Mr   Kolesnichenko was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   10 for costs and expenses.   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kondratyev v. Russia (no. 2450/04) The applicant, Aleksey Kondratyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in Kaluga (Russia) for firearms trafficking and aggravated murder. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the excessive length of his detention in custody. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the length – three years and 26   days - of the applicant’s detention. Mr   Kondratyev was awarded EUR   7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   170 for costs and expenses.     Repetitive case   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Eduard Chistyakov v. Russia (no. 15336/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicant by way of supervisory review. It further held that no separate issue arose under Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Hub v. Germany (no. 1182/05)     ***   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.