CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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 } .sC8AB5165 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:252pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   339 23.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Germany and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Two length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No.7 Kamburov v. Bulgaria (No. 2) (no. 31001/02) The applicant, Zahari Bechev Kamburov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Dimitrovgrad (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged in particular that he had no possibility of appealing to a higher court against his conviction by the District Court for a minor disturbance to public order. The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention: given the severity of the penalty provided for in domestic law for the offence concerned, the court considered that Mr Kamburov’s case should have been examined by a higher court. The Court awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. As Mr Kamburov had claimed no costs or expenses, the Court awarded none. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Rangelov v. Bulgaria (application no. 14387/03) The applicant, Stefan Georgiev Rangelov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia. In May 1998 he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of murder. Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about his pre-trial detention and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court unanimously found a violation of Article   5   §   3 because of the excessive length – almost five years and seven months – of his pre-trial detention, and a violation of Article   5   §   4, as the courts which had examined his applications for release had not sought to establish plausible reasons for suspecting him of the offences concerned, or held a hearing. It also found a violation of Article   6   §   1 because of the excessive length – more than nine and a half years – of the criminal proceedings. The Court awarded Mr Rangelov EUR 3,500   in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Two violations of Article 13 Gubkin v. Russia (no. 36941/02) The applicant, Sergey Gubkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving an 11-year prison sentence in Russia for, among other offences, fraud, kidnapping, extortion and robbery. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),   5   (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) he complained about the inhuman conditions of his detention and a lack of effective remedies in that connection, the unlawfulness and excessive length of detention, deficiencies in its judicial review, excessive length of the criminal proceedings in general and a lack of effective domestic remedies in this respect. The Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Articles   3 and   13 on account of the conditions of Mr   Gubkin’s detention in detention facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don and on account of the lack of an effective remedy for him to complain about the conditions of his detention. The Court further held that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1 on account of his detention from 12 February to 1   July 2002 and no violation of this provision on account of his detention from 1   July 2002 to 17   May 2004. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article   5   §§   3 and   4 on account of the excessive length – four years and eight months – of Mr   Gubkin’s detention pending trial and of the lack of effective judicial review of his complaints.   Lastly, the Court found violations of Articles   6   §   1 and   13 on account of the excessively long criminal proceedings against the applicant, almost six years, and of the fact that he could not have challenged it in the domestic legal system. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, Mr   Gubkin was awarded EUR   40,000. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Moskovets v. Russia (no. 14370/03) The applicant, Nikita Moskovets, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is currently in prison in Russia serving a life sentence for aggravated murder, theft and fraud. Relying in particular on Articles   5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Moskovets complained about the unlawfulness of his detention and of the composition of the court at his trial as well as about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §§   1   (c) and   3 on account of Mr   Moskovets’ detention from 2   December to 30   December 2002 and the excessive length – four years and four months – of his detention pending trial. It further held that there had been violations of Article   6   §   1 on account of the unreasonable length and the unfairness of the criminal proceedings. Mr   Moskovets was awarded EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   12,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Popov and Vorobyev v. Russia (no. 1606/02) The applicants, Sergey Popov and Vadim Vorobyev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1964 and 1963 respectively and live in Vladivostok (Russia). Former police officers, they were arrested in January 2000 with regard to firearms offences. They were ultimately given suspended sentences and released in March 2001. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained about the conditions of their detention. Further relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), they also complained about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention and that they had not been able to obtain judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the conditions of the applicants’ detention in Vladivostok pre-trial detention centre. It found a further violation of Article   5   §§   3 and   4 regarding the length – 13 months and 17 days – of their detention and the lack of response from Russian courts to the applicants’ applications for release and complaints about their detention. In respect of non-pecuniary damage each applicant was awarded EUR   8,000, and for costs and expenses they were awarded EUR   1,150, jointly. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Bratovanov v. Bulgaria (no. 28583/03) Ballhausen v. Germany (no. 1479/08)     ***   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.