CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 décembre 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   974 17.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Greece, Russia, Switzerland 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] , with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Georginis-Giorginis v. Greece (application no. 3271/08)* The applicant, Dimitrios Georginis-Gioginis, is a Greek national who was born in 1962 and is currently held in Chalkida Prison (Greece). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged that the proceedings brought against him for the purchase, sale and possession of drugs had been unfair in several respects and had lasted for too long. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 38124/07) The applicant, Yashin Yakubovich Dzhurayev, is an Uzbekistan national who was born in 1966 and is currently living in Moscow. Arrested in Moscow in January 2007 on the basis of an Uzbek court order, Mr   Dzhurayev complained about the unlawfulness and lack of judicial review of his detention pending extradition to Uzbekistan where he had been convicted of being a member of a prohibited Islamic religious organisation (Tablighi Dzhamaat). He relied in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 Just satisfaction: 10,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,750 (costs and expenses)   Golubeva v. Russia (no. 1062/03) The applicant, Mariya Grigoryevna Golubeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Biysk (Russia). Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life), she alleged that her partner had been killed by the police following an altercation with some teenagers outside their block of flats and that the authorities’ ensuing investigation into his death had been inadequate. No violation of Article 2 (investigation) Violation of Article 2 (right to life) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,200 (pecuniary damage), EUR 35,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   15 (costs and expenses)   Kolchinayev v. Russia (no. 28961/03) The applicant, Nikolay Konstantinovich Kolchinayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence in Minusinsk (Russia) for murder. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Kunashko v. Russia (no. 36337/03)* The applicant, Tamara Pavlovna Kunashko, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lived in Lesnoy (Russia) at the relevant time. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), she complained about the partial and therefore incomplete execution of a judgment ordering her employer to pay arrears of wages. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,400 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Shilbergs v. Russia (no. 20075/03) The applicant, Artur Viesturovich Shilbergs, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence in a correctional colony in the village of Slavyanovka (Russia) for aggravated robbery. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his pre-trial detention in two facilities. Further relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he also complained about the unfairness of three sets of civil proceedings – two concerning his conditions of detention and one a defamation action – he had brought in that the domestic courts had failed to secure his attendance or ensure representation as well as of the criminal case against him due to the lack of legal aid at the appeal stage. Two violations of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 10,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Werz v. Switzerland (no. 22015/05)* The applicant, Anto Werz, is a Bosnian national who was born in 1953 and is currently detained in the Bostadel Prison (Switzerland). He was accused of attempting to defraud a third party and of having subsequently killed that individual on account of the latter’s refusal to accept the proposed fictitious deal. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the excessive length of the proceedings against him, and alleged that he had not been notified about certain items of evidence and had not had an opportunity to confront the individual who had supplied the information used against him. Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,150 (costs and expenses)   Kalanoski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 31391/03) The applicant, Ilija Kalanoski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Skopje. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), he complained about the non-enforcement of a compensation claim. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 600 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kraynova and Kraynov and nine other “Yakut pensioners” cases v. Russia (nos.   7306/07, 8555/07, 11905/07, 11908/07, 11912/07, 14314/07, 14316/07, 14322/07, 14323/07 and 14326/07) Ryabov and 151 other “Privileged pensions” cases v. Russia (nos.   4563/07, 19923/08, 29853/08, 35836/08, 37062/08, 37064/08, 37069/08, 37072/08, 37568/08, 37717/08, 38120/08, 38832/08, 39479/08, 39532/08, 39601/08, 40675/08, 40676/08, 40678/08, 41157/08, 41158/08, 41161/08, 41163/08, 41794/08, 41804/08, 41806/08, 41807/08, 41810/08, 41820/08, 41822/08, 41824/08, 41825/08, 41828/08, 41911/08, 41975/08, 41981/08, 42005/08, 42006/08, 44357/08, 44361/08, 44617/08, 45200/08, 45204/08, 45207/08, 45243/08, 45246/08, 45253/08, 45258/08, 45261/08, 45265/08, 45833/08, 45834/08, 46047/08, 46210/08, 46211/08, 46215/08, 46218/08, 46965/08, 46968/08, 47762/08, 47768/08, 47774/08, 47776/08, 47779/08, 47783/08, 47878/08, 48025/08, 48045/08, 48049/08, 48054/08, 48056/08, 48587/08, 48606/08, 48854/08, 48861/08, 48877/08, 48942/08, 48956/08, 49322/08, 49325/08, 49411/08, 49415/08, 49563/08, 51002/08, 52521/08, 52557/08, 52563/08, 52566/08, 53574/08, 53579/08, 53583/08, 53587/08, 53589/08, 53593/08, 53595/08, 53600/08, 53603/08, 53605/08, 53607/08, 53611/08, 53614/08, 53617/08, 53620/08, 53623/08, 53629/08, 53632/08, 54367/08, 54379/08, 54384/08, 54392/08, 54396/08, 54398/08, 54399/08, 54400/08, 54431/08, 54456/08, 54470/08, 54473/08, 54507/08, 54513/08, 54526/08, 54530/08, 54590/08, 54593/08, 54596/08, 54602/08, 54605/08, 54608/08, 56037/08, 56774/08, 56778/08, 56781/08, 56784/08, 56786/08, 56789/08, 56801/08, 56806/08, 56813/08, 56816/08, 56827/08, 56832/08, 56837/08, 58306/08, 58344/08, 59027/08, 59599/08, 59626/08, 59628/08, 59698/08, 59699/08, 59703/08, 60036/08, and 4507/09) These cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that final judgments in their favour had been 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). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Volnykh v. Russia (no. 10856/03) This case concerned the non-enforcement of a judgment in favour of the applicant. He relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 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.