CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 }   792 22.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, and   “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   One repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Mondeshki v. Bulgaria (application no. 36801/03)* Stoyan Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 36275/02)* The applicants are two Bulgarian nationals. Momchil Mondeshki, who was born in 1974 and lives in Troyan (Bulgaria), is the subject of criminal proceedings for forging applications to join a pension fund. Stoyan Dimitrov, who was born in 1958 and is currently in prison in Sofia, was sentenced in 2006 to life imprisonment for murder. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained of their conditions of pre-trial detention. Under Article   5 (right to liberty and security), they also complained that the lawfulness of their detention had not been examined speedily. Mr   Dimitrov further complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), the applicants further alleged that their correspondence, in particular with the Court, had been hindered and/or monitored by the prison authorities. (1st case) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) (1st case) Violation of Article 5 § 3 (Both cases) Violation of Article 5 § 4 (Both cases) Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: (Mr Mondeshki) 3,000   euros   (EUR), (Mr Dimitrov) EUR   5,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and (Mr Mondeshki) EUR   920 (costs and expenses)   Özver v. Bulgaria (no. 22774/03)* The applicant, Celalettin Özver, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946. In 2001 he was arrested on suspicion of a drugs-related offence and remanded in custody. He was subsequently convicted. Relying, in particular, on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: no claim was made by the applicant   Raykov v. Bulgaria (no. 35185/03)* The applicant, Milcho Raykov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Turgovishte (Bulgaria). In 2001 he was convicted of a repeat offence of burglary. Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complained that he had not had the assistance of an officially appointed lawyer as he had requested. Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,730 (costs and expenses)   Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria (nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05) The applicants, Dimitar Yankov and Stoyan Manchev, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1971 and 1960 respectively and live in Stryama (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), both applicants complained that the criminal proceedings on suspicion of theft of sheep, brought against them in 1993 and 1995 respectively, had lasted too long. (Mr Yankov) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (Mr Yankov and Mr Manchev) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: (Mr Yankov) EUR 3,000, (Mr Manchev) EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,500, jointly (costs and expenses)   Paulić v. Croatia (no. 3572/06) The applicant, Smiljan Paulić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Požega (Croatia). Relying, in particular, on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained of a court decision ordering him to vacate the flat in which he had been living with his family for more than 17   years. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: no claim was made by the applicant   Paraponiaris v. Greece (no. 42132/06)* The applicant, Vassilios-Panormitis Paraponiaris, is a Greek national who was born in 1948 and lives on the island of Leros (Greece). In a judgment of 25 September 2008 the Court held that the Indictment Division of the Dodecanese Court of Appeal had not given the applicant full guarantees in respect of the requirements of a fair trial and the rights of the defence, and that its reasoning had been incompatible with the presumption of innocence, in breach of Article 6   §§   1, 2 and 3   (c). As the question of application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it. Just satisfaction: dismissed   Isayev v. Russia (no. 20756/04) The applicant, Sergey Isayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lived until his arrest in Astrakhan (Russia). In March 2003 he was arrested on suspicion of murder. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complained of having been beaten severely and repeatedly by the police in order to extract a confession from him, of his complaints to that effect not having been investigated effectively, of his detention on remand having been unlawful and too long, and of his applications for release not having been examined sufficiently rapidly. No violation of Article 3 No violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (period of detention from 6 November 2003 to 6 January 2004) Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (period of detention from 6 to 9 January 2004) Violation of Article 5 § 4 (applications for release of October and November 2003) No violation Article 5 § 4 (application for release of March 2004) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,424.16 (costs and expenses)   Rodin v. Russia (no. 5511/05) The applicant, Oleg Rodin, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (Russia). In 1997, he was charged with manslaughter, infliction of bodily harm and dangerous and disorderly conduct; in 2004 the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued because of the expiration of the prescribed period for prosecuting him. Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,200 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Mikhaylov v. Russia (no. 22156/04) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that a final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. He relied on Article   6   (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Otto v. Austria (no. 12702/08) Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria (no. 2380/03)* Kamberi v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 39151/04) Trpeski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 19290/04)     ***   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.