CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 mars 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 }   182 04.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Bulgaria, Russia and   Ukraine   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 one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     F.G. v. Bulgaria (application no. 17911/03)* The applicant, F.G., is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him for negligent management of a publicly-owned hotel complex of which he had been director. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: 2,400 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 600 (costs and expenses)   Getzov v. Bulgaria (no. 30105/03)* The applicant, Svetoslav Getzov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kavarna (Bulgaria). Relying in particular on Article   5   §   1   (e) (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, he complained about his placement in a psychiatric institution on the order of a prosecutor, for the purpose of determining whether he needed compulsory psychiatric treatment. Violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Khametshin v. Russia (no. 18487/03) The applicant, Rafail Khametshin, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Yaroslavl (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial), Mr   Khametshin complained about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him for assaulting a police officer. He complained in particular about the fact that he had not been given the opportunity to examine the police officers, witnesses against him, whose pre-trial statements had been read out at his trial. He was found guilty in November 2002 and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. Application inadmissible (no examination of the merits)   Mokhov v. Russia (no. 28245/04) The applicant, Aleksey Mokhov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a 22-year sentence for murder and robbery in a correctional facility in Lepley, Mordoviya (Russia). The case concerned Mr   Mokhov’s complaint that a public official had made a televised statement on his guilt prior to his trial. He relied on Article   6   §   2 (presumption of innocence). He further complained that the first-instance and appeal hearings in the civil proceedings he had brought against the prosecutor’s office and the television company for defamation had been held in his absence, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial). Violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Savenkova v. Russia (no. 30930/02) The applicant, Tatyana Savenkova, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Tambov (Russia). Ms   Savenkova was arrested in July 2001 and charged with incitement to murder; she was found guilty as charged in February 2004 and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, later reduced to five years. Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), she complained about the unlawfulness and excessive length of her pre-trial detention and that her applications for release had not been examined speedily. Violations of Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Just satisfaction Shtukaturov v. Russia (no. 44009/05) The applicant, Pavel Shtukaturov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in St   Petersburg. He has a history of mental illness and was declared officially disabled in 2003. The case concerned Mr   Shtukaturov’s complaint that he had been deprived of his legal capacity without his knowledge and confined to a psychiatric hospital by his mother. In a judgment delivered on 27   March 2008, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) concerning the proceedings which had deprived the applicant of his legal capacity; a violation of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the complete deprivation of his legal capacity; violations of Article   5   §§   1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) concerning his confinement in and inability to obtain release from a psychiatric hospital; and, a failure by the Russian Government to comply with its obligations under Article   34 (right of individual petition) as it had hindered the applicant’s access to the European Court. The Court held that it would decide the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) at a later stage. In its judgment today, the Court awarded Mr   Shtukaturov EUR   25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Shalimov v. Ukraine (no. 20808/02) The applicant, Sergey Shalimov is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence in Ukraine for two murders. Relying in particular on Articles   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), he complained about the length of his pre-trial detention and that he had not been allowed to see his family for four years during that period. Further relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. Lastly, relying on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleged that there had been no effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints about the refusal of family visits and the length of the criminal proceedings. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 (concerning the length of proceedings) No violation of Article 13 (concerning the refusal of family visits) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Rybakova and Others v. Russia (no. 22376/05) This case concerned the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce a final judgment in their favour. 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   Andreyev v. Russia (no. 32991/05) Tolstobrov v. Russia (no. 11612/05) These cases concerned the applicants’ complaints that the 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) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Andreyev) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Tolstobrov)     Length-of-proceedings case   Barantseva v. Russia (no. 22721/04) In this 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     ***   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.