CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 février 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   117 11.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, France and   Russia   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   (*).   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Raza v. Bulgaria (application no. 31465/08) The applicants are Ali Raza, a Pakistani national, and his wife, Zoya Georgieva Raza, a Bulgarian national. They were born in 1969 and 1975 respectively and live in Sofia. Mr   Raza was arrested on 30 December 2005 and placed in a special detention facility pending enforcement of an expulsion order issued on the ground that he posed a serious threat to national security. Released in July 2008, he is currently awaiting expulsion from Bulgaria to Pakistan. Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about the order to expulse Mr   Raza. They also alleged that Mr   Raza’s detention pending deportation had been unlawful and unjustified and had not been subject to speedy judicial review, in breach of Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention. Violation of Article 8 (if expulsion order enforced) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 Just satisfaction: 5,500 euros (EUR) to Mr. Raza (non-pecuniary damage); and EUR 1,200 jointly (costs and expenses)   Javaugue v. France (no. 39730/06)* The applicant, Patrick Javaugue, is a French national who was born in 1951 and lives in Goos (France). He is an employee in the public hospital system. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained about the refusal to allow him to take early retirement based on the retrospective application of a Law of 30   December 2004 (amending the provisions of the Code of Civil and Military Pensions), and of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the Conseil d’État . Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 37,423.95 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,980 (costs and expenses)   Malet v. France (no. 24997/07)* The applicant, Lilian Malet, is a French national who was born in 1957 and lives in La Possession (Réunion, France), a commune of which he was deputy mayor with responsibility for urban planning until 19 April 1990. In 1991 a complaint was made about him, alleging that he had acquired or retained a prohibited interest in the exercise of his duties, and accusing him of having taken a personal interest in the revision of the land-use plan. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which he considered excessive. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses)   Kayankin v. Russia (no. 24427/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kayankin, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Sosnovo (Russia). Relying among others on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of the tort proceedings he had brought. In these proceedings, he claimed compensation for medical negligence by the State authorities, who had drafted him into the army despite suffering from a serious brain illness. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Malysh and Others v. Russia (no. 30280/03) The applicants are six Russian nationals who live in the Armur Region (Russia). They are all holders of Urozhay-90 bonds introduced by the Government in the 1990s to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the State in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of consumer goods in high demand at the time (such as refrigerators, washing machines and cars) following economic reform and privatisation. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained about the Government’s failure to implement the procedure for redeeming their bonds. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,800, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000, jointly (costs and expenses)   Sabirov v. Russia (no. 13465/04) The applicant, Radmir Rinatovich Sabirov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Sharan (Russia). Convicted in February 2004 of battery and sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment, he complained about the unlawfulness of his custody from October to December 2003. He relied on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security). Further relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he also complained that his state-appointed counsel had failed to appear before the cassation court in his case. Two violations of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Salakhutdinov v. Russia (no. 43589/02) The applicant, Khalil Sultanovich Salakhutdinov, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and is currently serving a ten year and six month prison sentence in Kazan correctional colony (Russia) for inflicting severe injuries resulting in death. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his detention, notably in Bugulma remand centre between January and August 2002 and in Chistopol prison from August 2002 to August 2003. Two violations of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Zakayev and Safanova v. Russia (no. 11870/03) The applicants are Ramzan Zakayev, a Kazakh national who was removed from Russia to Kazahkhstan in April 2003 for a breach of residence regulations, and his wife, Imani Safanova (Zakayeva), a Russian national who lives in Moscow. They were born in 1958 and 1963 respectively and come from families of ethnic Chechens forcibly deported to Kazakhstan in the 1940s who returned to Chechnya between 1980 and 1990. They have four young children who have Russian citizenship. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complained that their nuclear family had been separated following Ramzan’s expulsion. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000, jointly (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,000, jointly (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 17276/07) This case concerned the authorities’ failure to enforce a judgment in the applicant’s favour in which an internally displaced family was to be evicted from a flat for which the applicant had been granted occupancy rights. The applicant relied in particular 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   Abdullayev v. Russia (no. 11227/05) Zalevskaya v. Russia (no. 23333/05) Kucherov and Frolova v. Russia (no. 14390/05) Votintseva v. Russia (no. 44381/04) These cases concerned mainly the quashing of final judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review. All the applicants relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). In the cases of Abdullayev and Zalevskaya the applicants also relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). ( Abdullayev v. Russia and Zalevskaya v. Russia ) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) and Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ( Kucherov and Frolova v. Russia and Votintseva v. Russia ) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant 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 Alagić v. Croatia (no. 17656/07)     ***   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.