CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 avril 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 } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   275 01.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Greece and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 20   Chamber judgments. The judgment available only in French is 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.     Gabriel v. Austria (application no. 34821/06) The applicant, Werner Gabriel, is an Austrian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Graz (Austria). In 1993, when he was a civil servant working at the legal affairs department of the Styria regional government, disciplinary proceedings were brought against him on a number of charges and in 1995 a disciplinary penalty of immediate retirement with a reduction of his pension benefits was imposed on him, upheld by the senior disciplinary board in 1996. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that no public hearing had been held before the administrative court, which had dismissed his complaint about the decision against him as unfounded. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) (costs and expenses)   Rangelov and Stefanov v. Bulgaria (no. 23240/04) Stefanov and Yurukov v. Bulgaria (no. 25382/04) The applicants, Stefan Rangelov, Rangel Stefanov and Mitko Yurukov, are three Bulgarian nationals, who were born in 1974, 1972 and 1971 respectively and live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Both cases concerned the length of criminal proceedings against the applicants, on charges of theft of motor vehicles in the first case and of theft of items from a car in the second case, which lasted more than ten years before they were eventually discontinued in 2003 and 2004 respectively. The applicants alleged a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention. They also complained that they had had no effective remedy in respect of the length of proceedings, in breach of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). (Both cases) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (Both cases) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 6,200, each applicant (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,000, each case (costs and expenses)   Vrbica v. Croatia (no. 32540/05) The applicant, Marko Vrbica, is a Montenegrin national who was born in 1937 and lives in Cetinje (Montenegro). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained of the refusal of the Croatian courts to enforce a judgment, given by a court in Montenegro and judicially recognised in Croatia, which had awarded him damages for injuries he had sustained in a road-traffic accident. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Buijen v. Germany (no. 27804/05) Smith v. Germany (no. 27801/05) The applicants are two Dutch nationals who were born in 1950 and live in the Netherlands. Jeroen Buijen lives in Amsterdam and Hendrik Smith lives in Groningen. Both applicants were convicted in 2002 by the Regional Court in Lübeck, Germany, of unlawful trafficking in narcotic substances and were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), both applicants complained about the German authorities’ refusal to institute in their cases proceedings to send them to the Netherlands, contrary to earlier assurances given by the Public Prosecutor, and about not having been able to challenge the judgments given by the Lübeck Regional Court as they had waived their right to appeal in view of the assurance given. (Both cases) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 to Mr   Buijen (non-pecuniary damage); no claim made by Mr   Smith   Evgeniou-Hatzidimitriou v. Greece (no. 26487/07)* The applicant, Demetrios Evgeniou-Hatzidimitriou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1946 and lives in Ilioupoli (Greece). In late 2003 criminal proceedings were brought against him for forgery, use of forged documents, fraud and formation of a criminal gang. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the excessive length of those proceedings, which are still pending. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Akhmetov v. Russia (no. 37463/04) The applicant, Rafik Akhmetov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Chelyabinsk (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant, who suffers from a rare tumour, complained that he had not received adequate medical treatment in prison, where he had been serving a sentence for a number of criminal offences. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 18,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia (no. 16903/03) The applicants, Nataliya Denisova, and her daughter, Nadezhda Moiseyeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1978 respectively. They are the wife and daughter of Valentin Moiseyev, who was also an applicant before the Court (application no.62936/00). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of the domestic courts’ refusal to lift orders – in respect of the spousal portion of the first applicant and of the computer owned by the second applicant – issued in 1998 during criminal proceedings brought against the applicants’ husband and father for treason. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Georgiy Nikolayevich Mikhaylov v. Russia (no. 4543/04) The applicant, Georgiy Mikhaylov, is a Russian national who was born in 1944 and lives in St. Petersburg (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained about not having had access to the appeal court in civil proceedings he had brought in 1998 for the recovery of his art collection confiscated as a result of judgments passed in earlier criminal proceedings against him which were subsequently quashed and terminated. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Gultyayeva v. Russia (no. 67413/01) The applicant, Nina Gultyayeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Moscow. Relying, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   1   (c) and   3 (right to liberty and security), she complained of the conditions and length of her detention awaiting trial, as well as of being unlawfully detained between 25   October and 4   November 2000. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,900 (costs and expenses)   Korolev v. Russia (No. 2) (no. 5447/03) The applicant, Vladimir Korolev, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Orenburg (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained about the unfairness of a civil case in which he had sought compensation for an air-ticket he had bought in 1998 while in active military service. He complained in particular about the public prosecutor’s participation in the appeal proceedings and about the impossibility for him to make comments on the prosecutor’s final remarks at the closure of the appeal hearing. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 10 (costs and expenses)   Margushin v. Russia (no. 11989/03) The applicant, Viktor Margushin, is a Russian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Taganrog (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complained of not being able to recover his money deposited in a private bank as a result of the non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour, and EUR   645 (non-pecuniary damage)   Pavlenko v. Russia (no. 42371/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Pavlenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Irkutsk Region (Russia). Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained of the conditions in which he had been detained in Barnaul and of not having had an effective remedy to challenge them, as well as of having been beaten by his interrogators and cell-mates. Relying further on Article   6 (right to a fair trial), he complained of having been refused to be represented by a lawyer of his choice, of the inefficiency of the legal-aid counsel assigned to him, as well as of having been forced to incriminate himself during the questioning after his arrest. No violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,600 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Panasenko v. Russia (no. 9549/05) Tsareva v. Russia (no. 43327/02) Both these cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that final judgments in their favour were quashed by way of supervisory review. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) (Panasenko) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (Tsareva)     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 Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) Lonza v. Croatia (no. 14062/07) Galanis v. Greece (no. 8725/08)*   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Niedzwiecki v. Germany (No. 2) (no. 12852/08) Karanikolas v. Greece (no. 12879/08)*     ***   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.