CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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 } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2A13E303 { color:#2e97d3 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6893B75D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffff00 } .s394C7864 { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffff00 } .s9C12EA88 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; background-color:#ffff00 } .sB12174C2 { color:#633277 } .s480C2F3D { color:#fad272 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 }   424 28. 0 5.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Greece, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21   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 6 § 1 (fairness) Elyasin v. Greece (application no. 46929/06) The applicant, Yousef Elyasin, is a Syrian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Athens . Having been convicted of handling stolen goods and bribing a civil servant, he complain ed   that the criminal proceedings against him had been   unfair, and in particular of an infringement of his right of access to a court. He relie d   on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. ** ** **   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Stamouli and Others v. Greece (no. 1735/07) The applicants, Evaggeli Stamouli, Ilias Stamoulis and Dimitrios Stamoulis, are Greek nationals who were born in 1938, 1973 and 1974 respectively and live in Athens . Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complain ed   of unfairness in proceedings before the Court of Audit.   The Court took the view that there had been an infringement of the applicants’ right of access to a court and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. ** ** **   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Varnima Corporation International S.A. v. Greece (no. 48906/06)   The applicant, Varnima Corporation International S.A. , is a joint stock company whose registered office is in Panama . The case concerned a dispute between the applicant company and the Greek   State , with which   it entered into a contract in 1978 for the importation of petroleum products from Iraq   to Greece . Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant company allege d   an infringement of the principle of equality of arms. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), it further complain ed   of discrimination against it on account of the preferential treatment afforded to the Greek State regarding the limitation periods applied in the related legal proceedings.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 14. It awarded the applicant company 6,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses. ** ** **   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Just satisfaction Z.A.N.T.E. – Marathonisi A.E. v. Greece (no. 14216/03) The case concerns actions for compensation brought by the applicant company in the context of a dispute over an island which it had acquired. In its judgment of 6 December 2007 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision. In today ’s judgment the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company, to which it awarded EUR 2,000,0 00 for pecuniary damage and EUR   25,000 for costs and expenses. ** ** ** (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 Karyagin, Matveyev and Korolev v. Russia (nos. 72839/01, 74124/01 and 15625/02) The applicants are three Russian nationals who live in Magnitogorsk   ( Russia ): Valeriy Karyagin and Sergey Matveyev who were both born in 1955; and, Sergey Korolev who was born in 1953. Former police officers, they were convicted in 1998 of bribe-taking and sentenced to between nine and ten years ’   imprisonment each. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial), they complain ed   about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against them, notably on account of discrepancies between the copy of the judgment served on them and that examined by the appeal court.   The Court noted that there had   indeed   been two versions of the judgment which , on being compared,   had a substantial number of discrepancies b etween them. However, the majority of the differences in the texts had been rectifications of spelling or grammar and, while regrettable, had not been to the applicants’ detriment. The Court therefore held that the two copies of the judgments had not made the proceedings against the applicants unfair and held   unanimously   that there had therefore been no violation of Article 6   §§ 1 and 3. ***   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   3.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kokoshkina v. Russia (no. 2052/08) The applicant, Natalya Kokoshkina, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in the Moscow Region. Arrested in October 2006 on suspicion of drug trafficking, Ms   Kokoshkina complai n ed   about the excessive length and inhuman conditions of her ensuing detention. She was released on bail in May 2008; the criminal proceedings against her are still pending. She relie d   on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security).   The applicant, Natalya Konstantinovna Kokoshkina, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in the Moscow Region.   Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) ***   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in   a facility no.   IZ-50/3 in Serp ukhov where she had been obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in an overcrowded cell – less than three m 2   of personal space for each detainee – with only one hour of exercise   per day. .   It further In addition, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3   as it considered that the length , more than one year and seven months,   of the applicant’s detention had been excessive . . The Court awarded Ms   Kokoshkina EUR   15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Isayev v. Ukraine (no. 28827/02) The applicant, Yuriy Isayev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Kharkiv ( Ukraine ). Arrested in November 1997 on charges of theft, Mr Isayev allege d   that he had been   beaten by the police while in custody and that, suffering from neurological problems, the medical assistance during his detention until   his release in October 2003 had been   inadequate. He was ultimately sentenced to almost six years ’   imprisonment for numerous robberies and burglaries in March 2007. He also complain ed   about the excessive length of his overall detention and of the criminal pr oceedings against him. He relie d   on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court considered that the applicant ’s complaints   concerning his alleged ill-treatment by the police had not been exhausted at domestic level and therefore declared that part of his case inadmissible . The Court noted that from December 2002 it had been clear, and even acknowledged by the penitentiary authorities, that the applicant’s right ha n d and foot were partly paralysed and that he needed specialist treatment which was not available where he was being detained. He was, however, only released ten months later . The applicant, Yuriy Vladimirovich Isayev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine).   Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) ***   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the inadequate   medical treatment   provided to the applicant from December 2002 .   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 the applicant’s detention   on remand   and a violation of Article 6   §   1 on account of the excessive length   – nine and a half years   – of the criminal proceedings   –   more than nine years in all   against him . Mr   Isayev made no claim under Article   41 (just satisfaction) ; he was therefore made no such . The Court, accordingly, made no   award   under this head .     (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 Senchenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 32865/06, 3137/07, 3158/07, 5650/07, 5654/07, 5657/07, 5663/07, 6727/07, 6822/07, 6828/07, 6846/07, 8553/07, 8560/07, 11576/07, 11578/07, 11582/07, 11583/07, 11584/07, 11585/07, 12966/07, 13830/07, 13831/07, 13833/07, 13835/07, 19001/07, 19003/07, 19736/07, 19738/07, 19740/07, 19741/07, 19744/07, 19746/07, 19749/07, 19752/07, 20343/07 and 20939/07) The Court decided to strike out of its list of cases Mr   Maznitsa ’s part of application no.   6727/07 . T he Court found the above violations in all the remaining but one of the above cases concerning the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicants by way of supervisory review.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Filshteyn v. Ukraine (no. 12997/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 3 Ovcharov and Khomich v. Ukraine (nos. 32910/06 et and 50081/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Nuzhdyak v. Ukraine (no. 16982/05) Shylkin and Poberezhnyy v. Ukraine (nos.   6924/06 et   8252/06) Stukalkin v. Ukraine (no. 35682/07) Zakharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 34119/07) Zhushman v. Ukraine (no. 13223/05)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Mr Shylkin) Violation of Article 13 Shylkin and Poberezhnyy v. Ukraine   (nos.   6924/06 and   8252/06) With the exception of the applicants in the case of Shylkin and   Poberezhnyy , all the applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicants in the case of   Ovcharov and Khomich , they all rely on A rticle   1 of   Protocol N o.   1 (protection of property ). In the cases of Filshteyn , Ovcharov and Khomich and   Zhushman , the applicants also rely on   A rticle 13 ( right to an effective remedy ). The Court found the above violations in these cases concerning the domestic authorities ’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain ed in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   In the case s   of Demirevi   and Ilievi , the applicants also rely ied   on Article 13 ( right to an effective remedy ).   The Court declared in admissible the remainder of the application in the case of Ilievi .   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Demirevi v. Bulgari a e (no. 27918/02) Ilievi v. Bulgaria   (no. 7254/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Roïdakis v. Greece (No. 2) (no. 50914/06) Tselika-Skourti v. Greece (no. 44685/07) Yeliseyev v. Russia (no. 12098/04) Nesterova v. Ukraine (no. 10792/04)     The European Court of Human Rights held [unanimously] [by   votes to ]   that there had been a/no violation of [Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time)] [ ] of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant     euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage/pecuniary damage and EUR   for costs and expenses. OR The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which   euros (EUR) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage/pecuniary damage and EUR   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English/French.)   Repetitive c ases   In the following cases ,   the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the s ame issues under the Convention.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.     ***   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.