CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 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 }   608 30.07.2009   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 23   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 5§§ 3, 4 and 5 Alekhin v. Russia (application no. 10638/08) The applicant, Aleksandr Alekhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in St   Petersburg (Russia). In 2005 he was charged with unlawful business activities and money laundering. He was held in detention pending trial and was convicted as charged in 2008. Relying in particular on Article   5   (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Alekhin alleged that his detention pending trial has been excessively long in breach of Article   5   §   3, that his right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of his detention has been infringed in breach of Article   5   §   4, and that he had no enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention in breach of Article   5   §   5. The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §§   3,   4 and   5 of the Convention. It awarded Mr   Alekhin 7,000   euros   EUR for non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) (fairness) Ananyev v. Russia (no. 20292/04) The applicant, Sergey Ananyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Smolensk region (Russia). He was found guilty of murder in 2003 and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He decided to plead his own defence at his trial of July 2003 because he was dissatisfied with legal-aid counsel appointed to represent him. He was however removed from the courtroom after an altercation with a witness. Mr Ananyev refused to participate in the appeal trial in February 2007; he questioned the effectiveness of the state-appointed lawyer who appears to have made oral submissions to the court on the grounds originally filed by the applicant. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) and   (d) (right to a fair trial) he alleged in particular that he was not present or represented at the trial hearings. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of these provisions and awarded Mr   Ananyev EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5§§ 3 and 4 Ananyin v. Russia (no. 13659/06) The applicant, Oleg Ananyin, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Volgograd (Russia). The applicant has been held in custody since April 2003 on suspicion of membership of an armed criminal gang, several counts of aggravated robbery, extortion, kidnapping, infliction of serious injuries and murder. The proceedings are still pending before the trial court. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) Mr Ananyin complained in particular of the appalling conditions of his detention, of the length of his detention pending trial and the failure to examine speedily an appeal concerning the lawfulness of his detention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the applicant’s detention in overcrowded cells (in facility no.   IZ-34/1 in Volgograd). It further held that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 because the length – more than six years – of his detention pending trial had been excessively long, and a violation of Article   5   §   4 on account of the failure to examine speedily an appeal the applicant had made against a decision rejecting his request to release him. The Court awarded Mr   Ananyin EUR   30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gladyshev v. Russia (no. 2807/04) The applicant, Yevgeniy Gladyshev, is a Russian national who was born in 1943 and is currently serving a sentence in Kostroma OT-15/1 correctional colony (Russia). In 2002 he was convicted of the murder of a law enforcement official and illegal manufacture and possession of weapons, and sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) Mr Gladyshev complained in particular of ill-treatment by the police after his arrest, of the absence of effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment and of the subsequent use at trial of confession statements obtained as a result of coercion. The Court held unanimously that there had been violation of Articles   3 (regarding both the ill-treatment and the investigation) and 6   §   1. Mr   Gladyshev was awarded EUR   15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Lamazhyk v. Russia (no. 20571/04) The applicant, Orlan Lamazhyk, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and is currently serving a prison sentence. He was arrested in January 2000, and found guilty of aggravated robbery and aggravated theft of weapons in August 2004. He spent more than four years in detention pending trial and was sentenced to eight years and two months’ imprisonment. 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 complains about the unlawfulness and the excessive duration of his detention, the failure of the domestic courts to examine “speedily” detention issues and the unreasonably long criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1   (c) on account of Mr   Lamazhyk’s detention on remand from 24   to 25   September 2003 and no violation of this provision concerning his detention from 25   September to 24   December 2003. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §§   3 and   4 on account of the length of Mr   Lamazhyk’s detention pending trial which had lasted nearly three years and ten months, and the lack of an effective remedy for him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The Court finally held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length – approximately four years and seven months - of the criminal proceedings. Mr   Lamazhyk failed to submit claims for just satisfaction within the prescribed time-limit. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Pitalev v. Russia (no. 34393/03) The applicant, Sergey Pitalev, is a Russian national who was born in 1970. He is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence in a penitentiary institution in Yekaterinburg (Russia) for inflicting grievous bodily arm resulting in death. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Mr Pitalev complained of his detention conditions in a correctional colony, where he was allegedly infected with tuberculoses, and in the prison hospital. He was alternatively detained in these two establishments between December   2002 and December   2004. He also alleged the lack of adequate medical care. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the conditions (among others little personal space, bad sanitary conditions) of Mr   Pitalev’s detention in the prison hospital, and no violation of this provision concerning the conditions of his detention in the correctional colony. The Court awarded Mr Pitalev EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Sergey Medvedev v. Russia (no. 3194/08) Sorokin v. Russia (no. 7739/06) The applicants, Sergey Medvedev and Nikolay Sorokin, are Russian nationals who were born respectively in 1983 and 1971 and live respectively in the Moscow region and in Volgograd (Russia). Relying in particular on article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), they complained of the length of their detention pending trial. Mr Medvedev was placed in custody in May 2006, charged with participation in mass disorder and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment in March 2008. Mr Sorokin has been continuously detained pending trial on the charges of membership of an armed criminal gang, robbery, extortion, kidnapping and murder, since he was remanded in custody in September 2003. The Court held unanimously that in both cases there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3 on account of the length of the applicants’ detention: slightly more than one year and ten months in the case of Sergey   Medvedev , and more than five years and nine months in the case of Sorokin . The Court awarded EUR   5,000 to Mr   Medvedev and EUR   7,000 to Mr   Sorokin in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. Mr   Medvedev was also awarded EUR   580 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia (no. 19223/04) The applicant, Vladimir Fedorov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving his sentence in a correctional colony in Kemerovo (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Fedorov complained in particular of ill-treatment on 12   and   13   March 2003 in the Rudnichniy District police station, where he had been brought after his arrest in the street, and of the absence of an effective investigation into his complaints. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 in respect of both the ill-treatment to which Mr   Fedorov was subjected and the lack of an effective investigation into his complaints of ill-treatment. The Court awarded him EUR   10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Yevgeniy Kornev v. Russia (no. 30049/02) The applicant, Yevgeniy Kornev, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Kurgan (Russia). In August 2001, Mr Kornev was arrested and charged with extortion and convicted by a final decision in March 2002; he was subsequently convicted for kidnapping in separate proceedings. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained that he was beaten up by police officers during and after his arrest. Relying further on Article   6   (right to a fair trial), he complained that, owing to belated notification, he was denied the opportunity to attend the supervisory-review hearing before the competent Regional Court and his submissions were disregarded. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 in respect of both the ill-treatment of the applicant and the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) on account of his absence from the supervisory-review hearing. The Court awarded Mr   Kornev EUR   6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Drozd v. Ukraine (no. 12174/03) The applicant, Nikolay Drozd, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Velykyy Lystven (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Drozd alleges that in 1997 he was beaten up by police officers who had taken him from his house, and that the investigation undertaken by the domestic authorities into his complaints has been lengthy and insufficient. The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   3 concerning the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. However, there has been a violation of this provision on account of the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment. Mr   Drozd failed to submit claims for just satisfaction within the prescribed time-limit. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Yefanov and Others v. Ukraine (no. 13404/02) The applicants, Oleksandr Yefanov, Irina Yefanova, Yuriy Boyev and Svitlana Boyeva, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1951, 1959, 1952 and 1953 respectively and live in Smila (Ukraine). Several criminal proceedings were instituted against them lasting from 1999 to January 2006 for smuggling, forging documents and tax evasion. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain that the proceedings have been excessively lengthy. The Court held unanimously that in the case of each applicant there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings that had lasted six years and almost ten months in respect of Mr   Yefanov, four years and nine months in respect of Mrs   Yefanova, about six years and eleven months in respect of Mr   Boyev, and about five years and two months in respect of Mrs   Boyeva. The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage which Mrs   Yefanova may have suffered; the other applicants did not request any just satisfaction. (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 Khotuleva v. Russia (no. 27114/04) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the quashing by way of supervisory review of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour. It also held that there had been no violation of Article   6 in respect of the non-enforcement of this judgment before it was quashed.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Prokopyeva v. Ukraine (no. 48771/06) Solonskiy v. Ukraine (no. 39760/05) Sorokina and Goncharenko v. Ukraine (nos. 41313/06 and 42206/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Semenovych v. Ukraine (no. 9480/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Shventkovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 27589/05)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Tereshchenko v. Ukraine (no. 33959/05) The Court found the above violations in these six cases concerning the partial, delayed or non-enforcement of judgments in the applicants’ favour.     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) Sebova v. Ukraine (no. 4430/04) Shastkiv and Valitska v. Ukraine (no. 3638/04) Smirnov v. Ukraine (no. 1409/03) Yakubovych v. Ukraine (no. 29025/05)     ***   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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.