CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 } .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 } 335 22.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Russia and   “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18   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.     Gulmammadova v. Azerbaijan (application no. 38798/07) Hasanov v. Azerbaijan (no. 50757/07) The applicants, Sarvinaz Gulmammadova and Vekil Hasanov, are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1961 and 1960, respectively, and live in Baku. Holders of occupancy vouchers for flats in a recently constructed building in Baku currently occupied by internally displaced persons from regions under the control of Armenian military forces, they both complained about the non-enforcement of domestic court judgments which had ordered the occupants’ eviction. They relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. (Both cases) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (Both cases) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: the Government must enforce the impugned domestic judgments within three months from the date on which the Court’s judgments become final. The Court further grants 11,042 euros (EUR) to Ms Gulmammadova and EUR   10,376 to Mr   Hasanov   (pecuniary damage), and EUR   4,800, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Kostov and Yankov v. Bulgaria (no. 1509/05) The applicants, Asen Angelov Kostov and Hristo Yankov Yankov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1961 and 1966 respectively and live in Stryama (Bulgaria). Charged with the theft of a car tyre in 1991 and acquitted by a final court decision in 2005, they complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against them had been incompatible with Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention. They further complained that they had had no effective remedies in respect of the length of the proceedings, in violation of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,500, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   600, jointly (costs and expenses)   Radkov v. Bulgaria (no. 27795/03) The applicant, Plamen Todorov Radkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1972 and is currently detained in Bobov Dol Prison (Bulgaria). Sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, he complained that letters from his lawyer and from the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights which he had received in prison had been opened and read by the prison administration. He relied in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence). Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Moon v. France (no. 39973/03)* The applicant, Timothy Moon, is a British national who was born in 1965 and lives in Otford (United Kingdom). In a judgment of 9   July 2009 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) on account of a penalty imposed on the applicant for failing to declare a sum of money at the French-Swiss border, namely the confiscation of the part of the sum in excess of the declaration threshold together with a fine. The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it. In today’s judgment, the Court took note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties and decided to strike the case out of the list.   Athanasiadis v. Greece (no. 16282/08)* The applicant, Georgios Athanasiadis, is a Greek national who was born in 1970 and lives in Thessaloniki (Greece). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained in particular about the length of proceedings following which the State paid him compensation for the damage sustained as a result of errors committed in a military hospital which had been held medically liable. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Kamvyssis v. Greece (no. 2735/08)* The applicant, Spyridon Kamvyssis, is a Greek national who was born in 1962 and lives in Athens. In 2003 he applied to the Supreme Administrative Court seeking the setting-aside of a decision revoking his appointment as an associate professor. Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained that his application had been rejected as being out of time despite the fact that he had not been informed of the impugned decision until the deadline for appealing against it had expired. He further alleged that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (access and length) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   500 (costs and expenses)   Maggafinis v. Greece (no. 44046/07)* Sarantidis and Others v. Greece (no. 51446/07)* The applicant in the first case, Adam Maggafinis, is a Greek national who was born in 1958 and lives in Kavala (Greece). The applicants in the second case are 11   Greek nationals. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings instituted against them in 2000 and 2002 respectively, which are allegedly still pending. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: to Mr Maggafinis EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage). In Sarantidis and Others, claim dismissed.   Bik v. Russia (no. 26321/03) The applicant, Aleksandr Bik, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Moscow. Committed to a psychiatric hospital against his will for more than ten days in 2002, he complained in particular that his right to liberty under Article   5   §   1   (e) (right to liberty and security) had been violated. Violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Goroshchenya v. Russia (no. 38711/03) The applicant, Arkadiy Goroshchenya, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and is currently detained in a correctional colony in Omsk (Russia). Sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment for aggravated robbery, he complained of the poor conditions – in particular overcrowding – in two detention facilities in St Petersburg where he had been kept for almost four-and-a-half years altogether. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He further complained that his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably long, in violation of Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sevastyanov v. Russia (no. 37024/02) The applicant, Pavel Sevastyanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Ivanovo Region (Russia) for murder, robbery and destruction of property. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complained of various procedural defects in the criminal proceedings against him. He further complained under Article   34 (right of individual application) that a letter to him from the European Court of Human Rights had been opened and inspected by prison staff and that there had been a delay in handing it over to him. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 34 (delivery of Court’s letter) No violation of Article 34 (confidentiality of Court’s letter) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Čiklić v. Croatia (no. 40033/07) Kvartuč v. Croatia (No. 2) (no. 34830/07) Praunsperger v. Croatia (no. 16553/08) Flaris v. Greece (no. 54053/07)* Panoussi v. Greece (no. 33057/08)* Ilievski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 35164/03) In these 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 – all cases Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) – 3rd and 5th 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.