CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 juin 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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 }   485 18.6.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 22 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 Novikov v. Russia (application no. 35989/02) The applicant, Andrey Novikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Blagoveshchensk (Russia). The case concerned Mr Novikov’s complaint that aviation fuel seized in 1998, which he subsequently acquired the right to claim on the basis of an assignment agreement, was lost by the authorities but he was not awarded any compensation. He relied in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of the authorities’ failure to return the fuel or to pay compensation, and awarded the applicant 13,300   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia (no. 23691/06) The applicant, Yevgeniy Shteyn (Stein), is a Russian and German national who was born in 1980. Arrested in December 2004 on suspicion of smuggling ecstasy, Mr Shteyn was convicted at final instance in March 2009 to 11 years’ imprisonment for drug-trafficking, among other offences. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his detention. Further relying on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complained about the unlawfulness of his detention in 2006, delays in the examination of his appeals against detention orders as well as the excessive length of his detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the conditions of Mr   Shteyn’s detention in Tomsk Remand Centre no.   70/1 and a violation of Article   5   §   1 in relation to one detention order. It considered that the excessive length – over three years - of his detention and the delays in examination of his appeals against two detention orders had amounted to violations of Article   5   §§   3 and 4 respectively. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the length – more that four years - of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court awarded Mr   Shteyn EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Sukhov v. Russia (no. 32805/03) The applicant, Valeriy Sukhov, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Sertolovo (Russia). A former police officer, he complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him for bribe-taking for which he had been ultimately convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length – approximately seven years and three months – of the criminal proceedings against Mr   Sukhov, and awarded him EUR   3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Bevz v. Ukraine (no. 7307/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gavrylyak v. Ukraine (no. 39447/03) The applicants are two Ukrainian nationals: Lyudmyla Bevz, who was born in 1950 and lives in Monastyryshche (Ukraine), and Bogdan Gavrylyak, who was born in 1962 and lives in Lviv (Ukraine). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), both applicants complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against them on fraud charges. The Court held unanimously that in both cases there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings: almost seven years in the case of Bevz and over eight years in the case of Gavrylyak . It further held that there had been a violation of Article   13 in the case of Bevz and that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under this article in the case of Gavrylyak . Ms   Bevz was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and Mr   Gavrylyak - EUR   1,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   41 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are 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 Batrak v. Ukraine (no. 50740/06) Bilokin and Others v. Ukraine (no. 14298/06) Kashlakova and Others v. Ukraine (no. 40765/05) Osaulenko v. Ukraine (no. 34692/07) Pidorina and Kyrylenko v. Ukraine (nos. 12477/06 and 31453/06) Shygareva and Mazhanova v. Ukraine (nos. 9450/07 and 22503/07) Vasylyeva v. Ukraine (no. 20511/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Khmylyova v. Ukraine (no. 34419/06) Snigur and Onyshchenko v. Ukraine (nos. 33064/06 and 35799/06) The Court found the above violations in these nine cases concerning the State’s failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all. The Court held that there was no need to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) in the cases of Bilokin and Others and Pidorina and Kyrylenko .     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) Rysev v. Russia (no. 924/03) Sokorev v. Russia (no. 33896/04) Bublyk v. Ukraine (no. 37500/04) Koziy v. Ukraine (no. 10426/02) Pilipey v. Ukraine (no. 9025/03) Termobeton v. Ukraine (no. 22538/04) Yeroshkina v. Ukraine (no. 31572/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Vdovina v. Russia (no. 13458/07)     ***   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.