CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 juillet 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 }   539 02.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, and   Greece   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 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) Dimitar Yanakiev v. Bulgaria (application no. 1152/03) The applicant, Dimitar Yanakiev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained of the failure to enforce a court decision in his favour concerning compensation for past expropriation of property. The European Court of Human Rights concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and found that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13. It held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant the amount due in execution of the judgment of 18 June 1999, namely 234 euros (EUR). Mr Yankiev was awarded EUR 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   412 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (Mr Iordanov) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 23530/02) The applicants are three Bulgarian nationals. Iordan Iordanov and Kamen Ivanov were born in 1950 and 1955 respectively and live in Sofia. Milcho Kirilov was born in 1949 and died in August 2003. At the relevant time the three applicants were working for the Interior Ministry’s operational and technical information department. Relying in particular on Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained about the judicial proceedings to challenge their dismissal and the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them.    The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 on account of the failure to comply with the principle of judicial security in the proceedings with which the applicants had challenged their dismissal. It also found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against Mr Iordanov. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR 4,500 to Mr Iordanov and EUR 4,000 to Mr Ivanov and to Mr Kirilov’s heirs. The applicants were jointly awarded EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 13 Kochetkov v. Estonia (no. 41653/05) The applicant, Mikhail Kochetkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jõhvi (Estonia). Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Kochetkov complained about the conditions of his detention in Narva Arrest House while awaiting his trial and the fact that the domestic authorities failed to provide adequate compensation for the deterioration of his health and mental suffering during that period of his detention. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 as it found that the conditions of his detention, in particular the overcrowding, inadequate ventilation, impoverished regime and poor hygiene, had caused Mr Kochetkov significant distress and hardship irrespective of the relatively short time he had spent in the arrest house. The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the restrictive interpretation of the relevant law followed by the domestic courts in this case and awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Chuwunonso v. Greece (no. 43407/06) Sarantidou v. Greece (no. 2002/07) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Ekonomi v. Greece (no. 39870/06) The applicants are three Greek nationals: Ifediora Kingsley Chuwunonso, who was born in 1973 and is currently held in Korydallos Prison (Greece); Arian Ekonomi, who was born in 1974 and is currently held in Malandrinos Prison (Greece); and Christina Sarantidou, who was born in 1987 and lives in Athens. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against them, for drug trafficking in the cases of Mr Chuwunonso and Mr Ekonomi, and for embezzlement in the case of Christina Sarantidou. Mr   Ekonomi also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings: five years and ten months in the Chuwunonso case; seven years and one month in the Ekonomi   case; and six years and more than eight months in the Sarantidou case. It also found a violation of Article   13 in the Ekonomi case on account of the lack of an effective remedy that would have enabled the applicant to complain about the length of the proceedings. The Court awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each applicant in the Chuwunonso and Ekonomi cases and dismissed the claim for just satisfaction in the case of Sarantidou .   (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Vafiadis v. Greece (no. 24981/07) The applicant, Ioannis Vafiadis, is a Greek national who was born in 1984 and lives in Salonika (Greece). At the relevant time he was following a course of treatment for his drug addiction. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his pre-trial detention following his arrest for selling   drugs to a minor. Under Article 5 (right to freedom and security), he also complained about the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 and Article 5 § 3, on account of the conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the premises of the Salonika police headquarters and the length – about 11 months – of that detention. The Court awarded Mr Vafiadis EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kirova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 31836/04) Panayotova v. Bulgaria (no. 27636/04) Peshevi v. Bulgaria (no. 29722/04) Tsonkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 27213/04)   (Ms Yurukova) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Yurukova and Samundzhi v. Bulgaria (no. 19162/03) The Court found the above violation in these five cases on account of the applicants having lost their property following the application of restitution legislation.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Ruga , the Court declared inadmissible the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   (Mrs Marinova) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (Mrs Marinova) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (length) Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria (no. 20568/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Ruga v. Bulgaria (no. 7148/04) Nielsen v. Denmark (no. 44034/07)     ***   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30)   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.