CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4CE664AB { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 }   768 15.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Russia and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 28 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.     Kuralić v. Croatia (application no. 50700/07) The applicant, Mustafa Kuralić, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in1957 and is currently serving a 12-year sentence in Lepoglava State Prison (Croatia) for murdering his wife. Relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Kuralić complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair as he was convicted on the basis of statements he gave at the investigation stage under duress. No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)   Prežec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07) The applicant, Zlatko Prežec, is a Croatian national who was born in 1972. He is incarcerated in Zagreb Prison Hospital where he is serving a 12-year prison term for murder for which he was convicted in 1997. While serving his sentence, criminal proceedings were brought against him in 2003 for threatening a prison employee. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant complained of not being granted free legal assistance at the trial stage in the criminal proceedings against him and that the lawyer assigned to him subsequently on appeal had not contacted him. Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Just satisfaction: 100 euros (EUR) (costs and expenses)   Kohlhofer and Minarik v. the Czech Republic (nos. 32921/03, 28464/04 and 5344/05) The applicants are Bruno Kohlhofer, an Austrian national, and Roman Minarik and Susanne Minarik who are both German nationals. They were minority shareholders in joint stock companies incorporated under Czech law. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained that Czech law did not permit them to challenge in court proceedings either a company’s resolution to wind up the company against their will nor an asset transfer contract granting all assets to the main shareholder. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction; EUR   2,264, each (costs and expenses)   Georgios Papageorgiou v. Greece (No. 2) (no. 21032/08)* The applicant, Georgios Papageorgiou, is a Greek national who was born in 1947 and lives in Aghios Stafnos Attikis (Greece). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about a failure to ensure equality of arms and a disregard of the adversarial principle in the criminal proceedings against him, further alleging that their length was excessive. No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   Konstantinos Petropoulos v. Greece (no. 55484/07)* Roumeliotis v. Greece (no. 53361/07)* The applicants, Konstantinos Petropoulos and Romeos Roumeliotis, are two Greek nationals. The first was born in 1955 and lives in Patras (Greece); the second was born in 1956 and lives in Lamia (Greece). Their cases concern civil actions for damages. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and, in the case of Mr   Roumeliotis, also article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complained that their right of access to the Court of Cassation was breached because their appeals were declared inadmissible, and that the length of the proceedings was excessive. Mr Petropoulos further complained about an alleged manifest error of judgment on the part of the Court of Cassation and about its composition. (1 st applicant)Violations of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR   6,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (costs and expenses) (2 nd applicant) Violations of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,000 (costs and expenses)   Antipenkov v. Russia (no. 33470/03) The applicant, Roman Antipenkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and is currently serving a sentence for robbery and assault in the correctional colony of Kamenka (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that his complaints to that effect had not been investigated effectively. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Buzhinayev v. Russia (no. 17679/03) The applicant, Aleksey Buzhinayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Barguzin (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about his detention on remand. He also complained under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) that the criminal proceedings against him had lasted for too long and that he had not had the possibility to challenge that effectively. Violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sokur v. Russia (no. 23243/03) The applicant, Valentin Sokur, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kaliningrad (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained that he had been unable to participate in the civil proceedings in which he claimed compensation for damage resulting from his unlawful detention and conviction in 1998-1999 for robbery and assault. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Chaykovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 2295/06) The applicant, Vladimir Chaykovskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Solone Ozero (Ukraine). Relying, in particular, on Article   34 (right of individual petition), he complained that in March 2003, while he was serving a sentence for attempted murder and robbery, the prison authorities had opened a letter sent to him by the Court and had withheld its contents. In addition, he complained that the prison authorities had prevented him from taking his case to the Court including by refusing to give him copies of documents he needed in order to lodge his application before the Court. Violation of Article 34 (opening of Court’s letter) Just satisfaction: no claim was made by the applicant   Dubovik v. Ukraine (nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08) The applicant, Yekaterina Dubovik, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Kyiv. Relying, in particular, on article   5 (right to liberty and security), she complained that she had been detained unlawfully on suspicion of aggravated trafficking in human beings and organised crime, that her application for release had not been examined promptly and that she had had no right to compensation for her detention. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Nichitaylov v. Ukraine (no. 36024/03) The applicant, Gennadiy Nichitaylov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Sukhodolsk (Ukraine). Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained that the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of negligence having caused in 2000 the death of eighty miners and the injuries of several more had lasted too long. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: no claim was made by the applicant   Okhrimenko v. Ukraine (no. 53896/07) The applicant, Sergey Okhrimenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and is currently detained in Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre No.   27 (Ukraine). Relying, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained that he had not received adequate medical treatment for his advanced cancer while in pre-trial detention on suspicion of theft and inflicting bodily harm causing a person’s death, that he had been handcuffed in hospital and that the conditions in which he was transported for about 50   kilometres to the court hearings had amounted to torture. The applicant also complained that the Government had failed to comply with interim measures indicated by the Court during the procedure, in violation of Article   34 (right of individual petition). Violation of Article 3 (in respect of the handcuffing in hospital) No violation of Article 34 Just satisfaction: EUR 1, 000 (non pecuniary damage)   Polishchuk v. Ukraine (no. 21231/04) The applicant, Viktor Poishchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained that the criminal proceedings brought against him in 1997 on suspicion of extortion of money had lasted for too long. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 600 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.     The following cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that final judgments in their favour were quashed by way of supervisory review. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Goncharova and Others and 68 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia (nos.   23113/08, 23123/08, 23130/08, 23137/08, 23143/08, 23146/08, 23149/08, 23157/08, 33921/08, 35054/08, 35068/08, 35073/08, 35130/08, 35189/08, 35194/08, 35197/08, 35222/08, 35234/08, 35244/08, 35249/08, 35255/08, 35257/08, 37978/08, 38012/08, 38130/08, 38147/08, 38152/08, 41789/08, 41791/08, 41792/08, 41793/08, 41797/08, 41801/08, 41811/08, 41812/08, 41813/08, 41816/08, 41818/08, 41831/08, 41878/08, 41882/08, 41885/08, 41887/08, 41889/08, 41892/08, 41894/08, 41898/08, 41908/08, 41909/08, 41915/08, 41918/08, 41980/08, 41983/08, 41987/08, 41989/08, 41994/08, 41998/08, 42008/08, 42010/08, 42013/08, 42015/08, 42016/08, 42018/08, 42020/08, 42021/08, 42022/08, 42023/08, 42024/08 and 42025/08) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 2, 000 to each of the applicants.     The following cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the Ukrainian authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in his favour. They relied mainly on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property); and some also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Glushko v. Ukraine (no. 22358/06) Krivenko v. Ukraine (no. 19547/06) Rotar v. Ukraine (no. 34126/05) Solomatin v. Ukraine (no. 8191/04) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: -execution of the domestic judgment at issue within three months -(Glushko) EUR 2,300 (non pecuniary damage) and EUR   10 (postal expenses); (Krivenko) EUR   1,800 (non pecuniary damage) and EUR   50 (costs and expenses); (Rotar) EUR   2,100   Gvozdetskiy v. Ukraine (no. 28070/04) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: no claim was made by the applicant   Komnatskyy v. Ukraine (no. 40753/07) Storozhuk v. Ukraine (no. 2387/06) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: -execution of the domestic judgment at issue within three months -(Komnatskyy) EUR 1,000 (non pecuniary damage) and EUR 20 (costs and expenses)   Korniychuk v. Ukraine (no. 28808/07) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: -execution of the domestic judgment at issue within three months -EUR 2, 000 (non pecuniary damage)   Rukas v. Ukraine (no. 15879/06) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: -execution of the domestic judgment at issue within three months -EUR 1, 800 (non pecuniary damage)   Shebanov v. Ukraine (no. 30664/05) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: no claim was made by the applicant     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.   In the case of Shepeleva , the applicant also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property)   Dovidyan v. Russia (no. 42277/04) Plemyanova v. Russia (no. 27865/06) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: (Dovidyan) EUR 1, 500 (non pecuniary damage), (Plemyanova) EUR 3, 000 (non pecuniary damage) and EUR 710 (costs and expenses)   Shepeleva v. Ukraine (no. 14403/04) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 2, 400 (non pecuniary damage) and EUR 80 (costs and expenses)     ***   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.