CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 janvier 2010

.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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   29 14.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk   (*).   One repetitive case [2] and two length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Vanjak v. Croatia (application no. 29889/04) The applicant, Zdravko Vanjak, is a Croatian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Karlovac (Croatia). Serving as a police officer in Karlovac, Mr Vanjak had disciplinary proceedings brought against him in 1996 for being involved in dealings with regard to a forged certificate of Croatian citizenship. He was found guilty and dismissed from the police force. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the unfairness of those disciplinary proceedings, notably that his statement used in evidence against him had been obtained illegally – after a whole night’s questioning – and that further witness statements relied on had never been communicated to him or their content revealed. He also complained that, although a criminal investigation – subsequently discontinued for lack of evidence – had still been pending concerning the same offence, he had nonetheless been found guilty in the disciplinary proceedings against him, in breach of his right to be presumed innocent under Article   6   §   2 of the Convention. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 6 § 2 Just satisfaction: 1,800 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,835 (costs and expenses)   Galotskin v. Greece (no. 2945/07) The applicant, Panayotis Galotskin, is a Greek national who lives in Ano Touba (Greece). Involved in an argument with the police in December 2001 when stopped in a car for an identity check, Mr   Galotskin alleged that he had been subjected to police brutality both during his subsequent arrest and detention and that the Greek authorities had failed to carry out an adequate investigation into the incident. He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complained in particular about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against the police officers concerned and of the administrative proceedings in which he had sought damages. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 17,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses)   Popovitsi v. Greece (no. 53451/07)* The applicant, Alina-Mirela Popovitsi, is a Romanian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Athens. Having worked in Greece as a cleaner since 1998, she was convicted at first instance in absentia of theft. Relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair hearing), she alleged that the proceedings against her had not complied with any of the safeguards afforded by Article   6, and complained that the arbitrary rejection of her application to set aside her conviction had deprived her of a hearing of her case by a court in her presence. Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (fairness) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage; EUR   1,500 (costs and expenses)   Mastepan v. Russia (no. 3708/03) The applicant, Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Mastepan, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Rubtsovsk (Russia). Suspected of counterfeiting, Mr   Mastepan complained that a Government investigator had unlawfully broken into and searched his flat in February 2002. He relied on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). No violation of Article 8   Melnikov v. Russia (no. 23610/03) The applicant, Sergey Anatolyevich Melnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and is currently in prison   in the Ulyanovsk Region (Russia). Convicted in March 2003 of robbery and theft, Mr   Melnikov complained about the conditions of his pre-trial detention during the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial), he also complained that, at trial, he had not been able to examine or have examined a co-accused in relation to two of the theft charges. Finally, he also complained under Article   34 (right of individual petition) that the authorities had tried to intimidate him as a result of his application to the European Court: by interfering with his correspondence to the Court; by refusing him permission to have a meeting with his legal representative; and, by detaining him in a punishment cells on numerous occasions. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) No violation of Article 34 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Moskalyuk v. Russia (no. 3267/03) The applicant, Igor Valeryevich Moskalyuk, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Moscow. Convicted in June 2002 of robbery and assault, Mr   Moskalyuk complained about the appalling conditions during his pre-trial detention and lack of adequate medical treatment for tuberculosis during the entirety of his detention. He relied in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Shugayev v. Russia (no. 11020/03) The applicant, Gennadiy Yuryevich Shugayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and is currently serving a 22-year prison sentence in Orenburg (Russia) for murder. Relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), Mr   Shugayev alleged that he had not been provided with legal assistance at the appeal hearing in his case. He also alleged that the Russian authorities had interfered with his correspondence to the European Court, in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition). Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Violation of Article 34 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kazakevich and nine other “army pensioners” cases v. Russia (nos. 14290/03, 19089/04, 42059/04, 27800/04, 43505/04, 43538/04, 3614/05, 30906/05, 39901/05 and 524/06) These cases concerned the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicants. Four applicants also complained of the non-enforcement of the judgments which were quashed on 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) (quashing of final judgments) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (quashing of final judgments) (Three cases) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (non-enforcement of judgments) (Three cases) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement of judgments) (One case) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (non-enforcement of judgment) (One case) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement of judgment)     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. They also relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Pavlova v. Bulgaria (no. 39855/03) Two violations of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13   Tsasnik and Kaonis v. Greece (no. 3142/08)* Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13     ***   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.