CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }   741 08.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Estonia, Germany, Russia and   “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   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.     Mikolenko v. Estonia (application no. 10664/05) The applicant, Nikolai Mikolenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 in Ukraine and lives in Tallinn (Estonia). Relying on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), he complained that, following the authorities’ refusal to extend his residence permit, he was detained unlawfully in 2003 in a deportation centre and was kept there for too long, until his release in 2007. Violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: 2,000   euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   208 (costs and expenses)   Adzhigovich v. Russia (no. 23202/05) The applicant, Yuliya Adzhigovich, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Moscow. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Ms Adzhigovich complained that the Russian customs inspection authorities had confiscated about 3,000 US dollars which she had not declared when travelling from Sheremetievo airport in Moscow to Ukraine in October 2004. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR   10,240   EUR (pecuniary damage), EUR   1,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,500 (costs and expenses)   Bordikov v. Russia (no. 921/03) The applicant, Viktor Bordikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and is serving a prison sentence in the Kirov Region (Russia). 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), he complained that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions without being given adequate medical treatment, and that his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings opened against him in 1998 on suspicion of unlawful possession of ammunition and drugs had lasted too long. Violation of Article 3 (treatment in detention) No violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR   3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Malkin v. Russia (no. 67363/01) The applicant, Boris Malkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Barnaul (Russia). Relying on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), he complained that he had been kept in detention in 2000 despite a court decision ordering his release. Struck out   Shemilova and Shemilov v. Russia (no. 42439/02) The applicants, Selikhat Shemilova and her relative Magomed Shemilov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1912 and 1966 respectively, and at the relevant time lived in a privately owned house in Grozny (Chechen Republic). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complained that their property had been destroyed by State representatives in 2000 and that they had had no access to the courts to have their claim for compensation examined. Struck out   Kamilova v.”the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 34151/03) The applicant, Katerina Kamilova, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Gevgelija (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), she complained about the non-enforcement of a court settlement reached in 1998 according to which a debtor was to repay her a loan she had given him in 1995. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: no claim was made by the applicant     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Finkov v. Russia (no. 27440/03) 2 violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) 2 violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: enforcement of judgments within 3   months and EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Prokhorova v. Russia (no. 13869/05) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: enforcement of judgment within 3 months and EUR 3,900 (non-pecuniary damage)   The two cases above concerned the Russian authorities’ non-enforcement of final judgments in the applicants’ favour and the quashing of those judgments by way of supervisory review.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   KIndereit v. Germany (no. 37820/06) Sopp v. Germany (no. 47757/06)* Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 14,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Yildiz v. Germany (no. 23279/06) No violation of Article 6 § 1     ***   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) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.