CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 avril 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } 295 08.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Croatia, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19   Chamber judgments, available only in English.   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.     Peša v. Croatia (application no. 40523/08) The applicant, Robert Peša, is a Croatian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Zagreb. The case concerned what was widely referred to in the Croatian national press as the “Maestro” affair; notably, Mr Peša, vice-president of the Croatian Privatisation Fund, was arrested and remanded in custody in June 2007 on suspicion of taking bribes. He was found guilty and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in May 2009; the case is currently still pending on appeal. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Peša complained about the conditions and duration of his detention as well as the proceedings concerning its lawfulness. He further complained about statements made to the media on his case by high-ranking State officials, in breach of Article   6   §   2 (presumption of innocence). Violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 5 § 4 (concerning a Supreme Court decision) Violation of Article 5 § 4 (concerning two Constitutional Court decisions) Violation of Article 6 § 2 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 9,900 euros (EUR) (costs and expenses)   Lutokhin v. Russia (no. 12008/03) The applicant, Andrey Lutokhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Gatchina (Russia). Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Lutokhin complained about the conditions of his detention awaiting trial on charges of abduction, robbery and extortion. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 18,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sabayev v. Russia (no. 11994/03) The applicant, Maksim Sabayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kolomna (Russia). Convicted of aggravated blackmail and kidnapping and sentenced to 16   years’ imprisonment in September 1999, Mr Sabayev complained about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him as well as of the ensuing supervisory review hearing in his case. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sinichkin v. Russia (no. 20508/03) The applicant, Andrey Sinichkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Orenburg Region (Russia) for aggravated concerted robbery. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complained about the unfairness of the appeal hearing in his criminal case, notably that it had been held in his absence without free legal representation. Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Bugayev v. Ukraine (no. 7516/03) The applicant, Aleksey Bugayev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence in Makeyevka (Ukraine) for murder. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Bugayev complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 600 (non-pecuniary damage)   Feldman v. Ukraine (nos. 76556/01 and 38779/04) The applicant, Boris Feldman, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk (Ukraine). A former manager and majority shareholder of the Bank Slavyansky, he was arrested and detained in March 2000 on suspicion of tax evasion. He was ultimately acquitted of that charge but found guilty of embezzlement and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention and that his applications for release had not been examined diligently. Further relying on Article   6 (right to a fair trial), he also complained about the unfairness of the proceedings against him, notably that jurisdiction had been changed in his case, with the result that it had been considered by courts which were biased against him. Lastly, he alleged that the authorities had put pressure on him to withdraw his application to the European Court of Human Rights, in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition). Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 34 Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Gurepka v. Ukraine (No. 2) (no. 38789/04) The applicant, Nikolay Gurepka, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), Mr Gurepka complained that he had been found guilty of an administrative offence – contempt of court – even though he had not been notified of the proceedings against him and that, at the relevant time, there had been no ordinary appeal procedure against decisions of first-instance courts on such offences. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for non ‑ pecuniary damage   Lotarev v. Ukraine (no. 29447/04) The applicant, Vitaliy Lotarev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a life sentence in Zhytomyr Prison (Ukraine). He alleged in particular that in June   2004 staff of that prison had beaten him, fracturing his ribs, and that the ensuing investigation into his allegation had been inadequate. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Menshakova v. Ukraine (no. 377/02) The applicant, Aleksandra Menshakova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Sevastopol (Ukraine). The case concerned Ms Menshakova’s complaint about the domestic courts’ refusal to consider her compensation claims against her former employers, State-owned companies, for their failure to pay her salary arrears in due time. She further complained about the excessive length of the compensation proceedings against one of the employers. She relied on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court and right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,100 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 40 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bulychevy v. Russia (no. 24086/04) Sizintseva and Others v. Russia (nos. 38585/04, 2795/05, 18590/05, 24012/07 and 55283/07 Yershova v. Russia (no. 1387/04) These cases concerned the applicants’ complaints that the domestic authorities had failed to enforce final judgments in their favour and/or quashed them on supervisory review. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) (Concerning non-enforcement – all applicants except Mrs   Sizintseva) (Concerning the quashing of judgments – all applicants in the case of Sizintseva and Others) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) (Concerning non ‑ enforcement – all applicants except Mrs   Sizintseva) (Concerning the quashing of judgments – all applicants in the case of Sizintseva and Others)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Belous v. Ukraine (no. 22580/04) Gutka v. Ukraine (no. 45846/05) Kostychev v. Ukraine (no. 27820/04) Khurava v. Ukraine (no. 8503/05) Shaposhnikov v. Ukraine (no. 30853/04) Shapoval v. Ukraine (no. 7411/05) Voyt v. Ukraine (no. 22149/05) In these cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (all cases) Violation of Article 13 (first, second and fourth cases)   ***   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.