CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 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 } .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 }   560 09.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, France, Greece and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .     No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bubić v. Croatia (application no. 23677/07) The applicant, Gorki Bubić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Povlja (Croatia). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the domestic courts’ decision to annul the sale contract for a flat in respect of which he had acquired protected tenancy. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 13 Khider v. France (no. 39364/05) The applicant, Cyril Khider, is a French national who was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Liancourt Prison (France) in the context of proceedings against him for armed robbery carried out as part of a gang, false imprisonment with voluntary release before the seventh day, attempted murder of a prison officer, criminal conspiracy and participation in an attempted escape. Relying in particular on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Khider complained of his conditions of detention and the security measures imposed on him as a “prisoner requiring special supervision”, in particular repeated transfers from one prison to another, prolonged periods in solitary confinement and systematic body searches. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3. It further found that there had been a violation of Article   13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy by which he could have filed such a complaint. The Court awarded the applicant 12,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Elezi and Others v. Greece (no. 33863/07) The applicants, Zyhdi Elezi, Albert Beqiraj, Benard Tafaj, Apostol Biba, Ndue Guri, Afrim Voci, Leonat Murisi and Kuburi Kreshnik, are Albanian nationals who are currently detained in Patras Prison (Greece). They were arrested on different dates in 2004 and 2005 for drugs-related offences and, in the case of Mr Kreshnik, also for unlawfully entering Greek territory. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against them and of the lack of an effective remedy in that connection under domestic law. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and Article   13 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings (in particular because of delays before the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal): more than five years for Zyhdi Elezi, more than four years for Albert Beqiraj, Benard Tafaj and Apostol Biba, and more than three years and seven months for Ndue Guri, Afrim Voci, Leonat Murisi and Kuburi Kreshnik. In respect of non-pecuniary damage the Court awarded the first applicant EUR   4,000, the second, third and fourth applicants EUR   2,500 each, and the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants EUR   1,500 each. For costs and expenses it awarded EUR   200 to each of the applicants. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia (no. 2737/04) The applicants, Aleksandr Avdeyev and Yevgeniy Veryayev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1975 and 1971 respectively, and live in Sasovo (Russia) where they were investigators in the District Police. Criminal proceedings were brought against them in 2001 for having tried to make a witness change his statement. Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), they complained about their detention on remand. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1   (c) on account of the applicants’ detention on remand from 5   June to 10   July 2003, and no violation of this provision on account of their detention from 8   October 2003 to 9   January 2004. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the length – eight months and eight days – of their detention. The Court awarded each applicant EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) No violation of Article 3(treatment) No violation of Article 13 Violation of Article   6   §   1 (fairness) Generalov v. Russia (no. 24325/03) The applicant, Yuriy Generalov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Ferzikovo (Russia). From August 2001 to December 2002 Mr Generalov served a sentence for theft in a correctional facility in Lepley in the Republic of Mordovia (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) he complained about the conditions of his detention in that facility and of ill-treatment. Under Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), he complained about the courts’ refusal to examine his claim for compensation following his ill-treatment. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of Mr   Generalov’s conditions of detention and no violation of Article   13 in respect of the alleged lack of an effective remedy relating to the poor conditions of detention. The Court held that there had been no violation of Article   3 on account of the alleged ill-treatment of Mr   Generalov, and that there had been a violation of this Article on account of the lack of an effective investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment. Lastly, the Court held that Mr   Generalov’s right of access to a court had been breached in violation of Article   6   §   1. The applicant submitted no claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04) The applicant, Oleg Ilatovskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in St.   Petersburg (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Ilatovskiy alleged that criminal proceedings in which he had been convicted for aggravated robbery had not been fair due to the selection procedure of the lay judges in his case. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the absence of any legal grounds for the participation of the lay judges   S. and   B. in the administration of justice in the applicant’s case. It further held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the complaint pertaining to the extension of the lay judges’ term of office by the President’s Decrees. Mr   Ilatovskiy submitted no claim for just satisfaction. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Kononovich v. Russia (no. 41169/02) The applicant, Bogdan Kononovich, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and is serving a nine-year prison sentence in Izhevsk (Russia) for theft. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) he complained in particular about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3, the applicant’s pre-trial detention having lasted for over nineteen months. Mr   Kononovich was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   125 for costs and expenses. (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) 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 90 21 53 39)   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.