CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 novembre 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 }   891 26.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, 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.     Koriyski v. Bulgaria (application no. 19257/03)* The applicant, Kostadin Koriyski, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Krichim (Bulgaria). He was remanded in custody on a charge of robbery. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the length of his detention. He also alleged that his applications for release had not been examined effectively or promptly and that his correspondence with his lawyer had been monitored. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: 3,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Naydenov v. Bulgaria (no. 17353/03)* The applicant, Zahari Naydenov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1923 and lives in Montana (Bulgaria). Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention, he complained about the excessive length and ineffectiveness of proceedings for restitution and compensation in respect of land that had been nationalised at the beginning of the Communist era, alleging that to date he had not really been able to exercise his right to restitution or compensation, as recognised by the competent domestic authorities. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Dolenec v. Croatia (no. 25282/06) The applicant, Branko Dolenec, is a Croatian national who was born in 1967 and is at present serving a prison term in Croatia for theft. Mr   Dolenec’s case notably concerned his complaint about his conditions of detention in various prisons and the alleged lack of adequate medical care for his psychiatric condition, post-traumatic stress disorder. He also alleged that he had been assaulted by prison guards and that there had been no effective and thorough investigation into his allegation. He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   8 (right to respect for private and family life). He also complained that the proceedings against him had been unfair, in breach of Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial). No violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 3 (investigation) No violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,550 (costs and expenses)   Pešková v. the Czech Republic (no. 22186/03) The applicant, Eva Pešková, is a Czech national who was born in 1954 and lives in Prague. Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), she complained about the length and unfairness of restitution proceedings in which she had been dispossessed of property she owned in Neštěnice. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 30,000 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 240 (costs and expenses)   Vautier v. France (no. 28499/05)* The applicant, Corinne Vautier, is a French national who was born in 1953 and lives in Orléans (France). Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), she complained about the placement in care of her minor daughters from 2003 to 2004. No violation of Article 8   Tabesh v. Greece (no. 8256/07)* The applicant, Rafk Tabesh, is an Afghan national who was born in 1986. His current place of abode is unknown. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his detention pending deportation. Relying in particular on Article   5 (right to liberty and security), he further complained that his placement in detention had been unlawful, the reasoning of the administrative and judicial decisions having been insufficient in this connection, and that when he had been arrested he had been informed of the reasons for his arrest in a language that he had not understood. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,500 (costs and expenses)   Nazarov v. Russia (no. 13591/05) The applicant, Rakhmatullo Nazarov, is a Tajikistani national who was born in 1980 and is currently serving a three-year prison sentence in Vladimir (Russia) for drug-related offences. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the poor conditions of his detention. He also complained about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention and failure to "speedily" examine his appeals against decisions to extend his detention, in breach of Article 5   §§   1, 3   and   4 (right to liberty and security). Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 1 (unlawful detention between 4 and 16 August 2004) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,500 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Botskalev and Rostovtseva and 42 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia (nos.   22666/08, , 22673/08, 22675/08, 22677/08, 22683/08, 22686/08, 22688/08, 22691/08, 22699/08, 22709/08, 39366/08, 39414/08, 39460/08, 39492/08, 39514/08, 39522/08, 40477/08, 40482/08, 40495/08, 42002/08, 42004/08, 42026/08, 43817/08, 43827/08, 43834/08, 43844/08, 43861/08, 44339/08, 44343/08, 44344/08, 44348/08, 44364/08, 45346/08, 46204/08, 46214/08, 59620/08, 59622/08, 59630/08, 59691/08, 59692/08, 59695/08, 59696/08, and 59701/08) This case concerned the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicants. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (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   Zaytseva v. Russia (no. 11583/05) This case concerned the Russian authorities’ failure to notify the applicant of an appeal hearing. She relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     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   Abduvalieva v. Germany (no. 54215/08) Ivanovski and Others v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (1st and 2nd applicants)     ***   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.