CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 mai 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 }   393 14.5.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, neither of which is final. [1]     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Vervesos v. Greece (no. 14721/06) The applicant, Dimitrios Vervesos, is a Greek national who was born in 1964 and lives in Athens. In December 1998, while he was taking part in a rafting trip, the applicant’s rubber raft capsized. Mr Vervesos was thrown into the water and remained trapped against a rock for several hours. Criminal proceedings were brought against the trip leader, M.T., for having placed Mr Vervesos at immediate risk of death or serious injury. Mr Vervesos was awarded compensation in the civil courts. In January 1999 he joined the criminal proceedings against M.T. as a civil party seeking damages. M.T. was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in May 2003 and was subsequently acquitted on appeal in May 2005. On 6   October 2005 Mr   Vervesos was refused leave to appeal on points of law. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Vervesos complained, among other things, of the overall length of the proceedings, and in particular of the proceedings before the Criminal Court, which had lasted from January 1999 to May 2003. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1, as the proceedings had lasted for six years and eight months at two levels of jurisdiction. It awarded Mr Vervesos 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in French .)     No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Alibekov v. Russia (application no. 8413/02)   The applicant, Sulayman Alibekov, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Inchkha (Russia). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, Mr Alibekov complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in August 2002 by a special police unit in a correctional colony in the Tyumen Region where he was serving two sentences for manslaughter and a grave traffic offence. He also alleged that the investigation into the incident had been ineffective. The Court first noted that there had been a discrepancy between the description of the events provided by Mr Alibekov and that provided by the authorities. While the medical report made in the immediate aftermath of the events had not recorded any injuries on the body of Mr Alibekov, his version of the facts had not been backed up by persuasive evidence or reliable witness testimonies. The Court itself was therefore unable, in view of the deficient information in its possession, to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Alibekov had been the victim of a beating, and held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article   3 as regards his allegation of ill-treatment. On the other hand, the Court noted that, despite having been opened in 2002, the investigation was still pending and had essential omissions which called into question its reliability and effectiveness. Accordingly, the Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into Mr Alibekov’s complaints of ill-treatment. The Court further held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article   13. Mr   Alibekov was awarded 3,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   ***   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.