CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 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 } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 }   137 18.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Croatia, France, Greece, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 24   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.     Lesjak v. Croatia (application no. 25904/06) The applicant, Dražen Lesjak, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1974 in lives in Trnovec Bartolovečki (Croatia). Having been employed by a local police department where he worked at the catering service, he was dismissed without a formal decision after the catering service had been outsourced to a third party. A civil action he brought against his former employer was, after a conflict of jurisdiction, eventually declared inadmissible. He complained that the domestic courts’ refusal to examine the merits of his case had violated his rights under Article   6   §   1 (access to court). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 3,405 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses)   Baccichetti v. France (no. 22584/06)* The applicant, Yves Baccichetti, is a French national who was born in 1954 and lives in Jussy (France). He is a stomatologist qualified to perform jaw and facial surgery. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained that disciplinary proceedings instituted against him in 2003 by a patient disputing the cost and appropriateness of four operations had been unfair. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: -pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction -costs and expenses: EUR   2,000   Matthaiou and Others v. Greece (no. 17556/08)* The applicants are four Greek nationals, together with the daughters and sole heirs of a fifth applicant who died in 2008 (after the application was lodged). The five applicants were the co-owners of a townhouse in Naousa (Greece), known as the “House of the Hagiographer Christodoulos Matthaios”. In 2000 the State expropriated the house for use as a museum and for general cultural activities. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained that the State had not complied with court decisions awarding them compensation for expropriation and ordering the State to pay them the sums awarded, plus interest. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: enforcement of decision no.   127/2004 and, jointly to the applicants, EUR 25,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   3,000 (costs and expenses)   Pechlivanidis and Others v. Greece (no. 48380/07)* The applicants are eight Greek nationals who live in Athens and are the co-owners of a 210   sq.   m plot of land in Moschato (Greece). In 1987 the town council reclassified their land as a “green area” and a “sports and leisure zone”. As no steps had been taken in the meantime to develop the land for that purpose, the applicants obtained a decision from the Piraeus Administrative Court in 2007 ordering the State to lift the encumbrance on their property. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained about the refusal by the Greek authorities to comply with that decision. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: jointly, EUR 40,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,000 (costs and expenses)   Anatoliy Tarasov v. Russia (no. 3950/02) The applicant, Anatoliy Tarasov, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and is currently serving a prison sentence in correctional colony   IK-3 in the Bashkortostan Republic (Russia). Convicted of a number of offenses including murder and robbery, he complained that the criminal charges against him had been reclassified in a supervisory review hearing without him being able to present his arguments, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial). Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence) and   34 (right of individual petition), he also alleged that the prison authorities had interfered with his correspondence and that he had been intimidated in connection with his application to the Court. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 34 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Zaichenko v. Russia (no. 39660/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Zaichenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Lazarevo (Russia). Convicted of stealing diesel from the company for which he worked as a driver and sentenced to a suspended prison sentence, he complained that his conviction had been based on admissions he had made to police before the trial in the absence of a lawyer, in breach of Article   6 (right to a fair trial). No violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Chesnyak v. Ukraine (no. 1809/03) The applicant, Fedir Chesnyak, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Zaporizhzhya (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) he complained that the criminal proceedings instituted against him in connection with smuggling goods to Ukraine, lasting seven years and two months for pre-trial investigation and three levels of jurisdiction, had been excessively long. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Garkavyy v. Ukraine (no. 25978/07) The applicant, Aleksandr Garkavyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Ukraine. He was placed in detention under the Convention on Extradition on the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the Prague City Court after he had been found guilty of murder and unlawful possession of arms there. Relying on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) Mr   Garkavyy alleged that his detention had been unlawful. Three violations of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Gavazhuk v. Ukraine (no. 17650/02) The applicant, Boris Gavazhuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1971 and is serving a prison sentence at the Berdychiv Town Correctional colony (Prison) No.   70 Zhytomyr (Ukraine). In 1999, his name was placed on the list of persons suspected of a crime and he subsequently was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) Mr   Gavazhuk’ alleged that his detention had been unlawful. Two violations of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,760 (costs and expenses)   Myronenko v. Ukraine (no. 15938/02) The applicant, Kateryna Myronenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Lozova (Ukraine). Relying on Article   2 (right to life) she complained about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of her son who was found dead in his house, in which he lived alone. Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Nikiforenko v. Ukraine (no. 14613/03) The applicant, Lyudmila Nikiforenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Chervonopartizansk (Ukraine). In 1997, criminal proceedings were instituted against her for having broken into an apartment and taken a bicycle which had belonged to her ex-husband. Relying on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), she complained of the length of these proceedings, which had been terminated by the prosecutor in 2009 for lack of proof of crime. Relying on Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement), she complained of having been placed under an obligation not to abscond during the proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,200 (non-pecuniary damage)   Puzan v. Ukraine (no. 51243/08) The applicant, Dmitriy Puzan, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1980 and is currently detained in Simferopol pre-trial detention centre awaiting his extradition to Belarus following drug-related offences. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that if extradited he would face the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment and flagrant denial of justice by the Belarus authorities. Relying on Article   5   §§   1   (f) and   4 (right to liberty and security), he further complained that he had been unlawfully detained by the Ukrainian authorities and that there had been no effective judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. Finally, relying on Article   34 (individual applications), he complained of having been questioned by the assistant prosecutor in order to deter him from applying to the Court. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 No violation of Article 34 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 523 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Abbasov v. Russia (no. 11470/03) and Gribanenkov v. Russia (no. 16583/04) These cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour in good time. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the case of Gribanenkov the applicant also complained of the length of the proceedings and he further relied on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Abbasov v. Russia : Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Gribanenkov v. Russia : Violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness and length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13   Nikolay Zaytsev v. Russia (no. 3447/06) This case concerned in particular the applicant’s complaints that a final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. He relied in particular on Articles   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   Chubakova v. Ukraine (no. 17674/05) Gurynenko v. Ukraine (no. 37246/04) Khalak v. Ukraine (no. 39028/04) Malanchuk and Vavrenyuk v. Ukraine (no. 5211/05)* Mykulyn v. Ukraine (no. 35187/04) Prekrasnyy v. Ukraine (no. 33697/04) Rostuno.va v. Ukraine (no. 20165/04) Udovik v. Ukraine (no. 39855/04) Yelena Ivanova v. Ukraine (no. 4640/04)     ***   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.