CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 mai 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 } 413 20.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Austria, Croatia, Greece, Russia, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 29   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.     Larin v. Russia (application no. 15034/02) The applicant, Vitaliy Larin, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Slavyanovka (Kaliningrad region, Russia). While serving a prison sentence for theft, robbery and forgery, a civil claim was brought against him. He alleged in particular that the ensuing court proceedings at two levels of jurisdiction, which resulted in his being ordered to return a car he had purchased, had been held in his absence, that he had not been provided with legal aid and that he had therefore been unable to present his case on an equitable basis, in violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Vladimir Kozlov v. Russia (no. 21503/04) The applicant, Vladimir Kozlov, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow. Convicted of aiding and abetting a murder and planning another murder, he complained that the conditions of his detention on remand had been inhuman and degrading, in violation of in particular Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   850 (costs and expenses)   Adnan Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 4574/06)* The applicant, Adnan Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in Van (Turkey). Relying mainly on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), the applicant complained that he had been denied the opportunity to bring compensation proceedings in the Supreme Military Administrative Court for the damage he had sustained after contracting hepatitis B during his military service, as he had been refused legal aid Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Araz v. Turkey (no. 44319/04) The applicant, İbrahim Araz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul. Taken into police custody in 1999 at the age of seventeen and charged with membership of an illegal armed organisation, he was remanded in detention pending trial for a total period of more than four years, including the time spent in detention after his conviction at first instance was quashed. He complained under Article   5   §§   3 and   5 (right to liberty and security) that the length of this detention had been excessive, and under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) that the criminal proceedings against him, which are still pending, had not been concluded within a reasonable time. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,900 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Aytimur v. Turkey (no. 20259/06)* Erhan Dinç v. Turkey (no. 28551/06)* The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Delil Aytimur was born in 1990 and lives in Mardin, and Erhan Dinç was born in 1988 and is currently in prison in Diyarbakır. In 2005 they were taken into police custody on suspicion of being members of an illegal armed organisation. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), they complained that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive and that they had had no effective remedy to contest its lawfulness. (Both applicants) Violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000, each (costs and expenses)   Baran and Hun v. Turkey (no. 30685/05) The applicants, Gülderen Baran (San), and Hacı Aziz Hun, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1965 respectively, and, at the time of lodging the application, were in prison in Turkey. Convicted of undermining the constitutional order of the State (the first applicant) and of membership in an illegal armed organisation (the second applicant) by a judgment that was eventually upheld in 2001, they complained under Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations. They further complained, relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), that they had been convicted on the basis of statements given under torture and without the assistance of a lawyer while being held in police custody. (1st applicant) Violations of Article 3 (torture and investigation) (Both applicants) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: to Gülderen Baran EUR 60,000 and to Hacı Aziz Hun EUR 4,800 (non ‑ pecuniary damage)   Gedik v. Turkey (nos. 22478/06 and 37667/08)* The applicants, Bülent Gedik, and his mother, Hatice Gedik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1952 respectively. Mrs Gedik lives in Istanbul and her son is currently in Kocaeli Prison (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive and that he had had no effective remedy to contest its lawfulness, following his arrest in 1996 in the course of a police operation against an illegal organisation, the TKEP/L (Communist Labour Party/Leninist). (1st applicant) Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Just satisfaction: to Bülent Gedik EUR 20,400 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   1,000 (costs and expenses)   Galat v. Ukraine (no. 716/05) The applicant, Valentina Galat, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kremenchug (Ukraine). Convicted by a final court decision in November 2004 of embezzlement during her work as an accountant at a State company in 1998, she complained of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against her. She relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 600 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 200 (costs and expenses)   Kamyshev v. Ukraine (no. 3990/06) The applicant, Oleg Kamyshev, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Zhytomyr (Ukraine). Ordered to be extradited to Belarus, where criminal proceedings against him are pending for alleged offences during his employment as customs officer in 2002 and 2003, he complained, relying in particular on Article   5§§   1   (f) and   4, that he had been unlawfully detained in Ukraine. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Kurochkin v. Ukraine (no. 42276/08) The applicant, Vladyslav Kurochkin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kyiv. He complained that the domestic courts had annulled his adoption of a boy following the request of his former wife after their divorce, alleging that this decision had violated his rights in particular under Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Lopatin and Medvedskiy v. Ukraine (nos. 2278/03 and 6222/03) The applicants, Sergey Lopatin and Aleksandr Medvedskiy, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1975 and 1976 respectively. Convicted of robbery (Mr   Lopatin) and robbery and murder (Mr   Medvedskiy), they alleged that they had been ill-treated by the police during three days of detention at a police station following their arrest in 1999; Mr   Lopatin also complained of the alleged failure to carry out an investigation in this respect. Both applicants further complained that their detention had been unlawful as it had not been recorded, and about the length of the proceedings, which lasted more than three years. They relied in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time (Both applicants) Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) (Both applicants) Violation of Article 5 § 1 (Both applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: to Mr Lopatin EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage). Mr   Medvedsky made no claim   Moskalenko v. Ukraine (no. 37466/04) The applicant, Aleksey Moskalenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1982 and is currently apparently serving a sentence in the Donetsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre (Ukraine). Convicted of a number of offences, including aggravated murder, he complained of the excessive length of his detention on remand, which lasted more than four years and ten months. He relied on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security). Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 4,100 (non-pecuniary damage)   Myrskyy v. Ukraine (no. 7877/03) The applicant, Rudolf Myrskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Lviv (Ukraine). He is a political science professor. Following his participation in a round table in 1999, he was quoted by a newspaper as having made statements about the extremist and anti-Semitic position of a political party. Despite his insistence that his words had been misrepresented he was ordered by a court decision in 2002 to publish a disclaimer and apologies. He complained in particular about a violation of his rights under Article   10 (freedom of expression). Violation of Article 10 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,200 (non-pecuniary damage)   Pelevin v. Ukraine (no. 24402/02) The applicant, Mykola Pelevin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in L’viv (Ukraine). Sentenced to an administrative fine in 2001 for inflicting a minor bodily injury on another person in 1999, he complained of lack of access to a court on account of the Ukrainian Supreme Court’s initial failure to review his case within the ordinary cassation review proceedings. He relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant within time-limit   Pokhlebin v. Ukraine (no. 35581/06) The applicant, Dmitriy Pokhlebin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine). Having served a prison sentence of more than two years for a number of offences, he complained of the poor conditions of his detention and of the fact that he had not been provided with appropriate medical assistance. He relied in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Two violations of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 20 (costs and expenses)   Just satisfaction Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine (no. 22603/02) The applicant, the Ukraine-Tyumen Joint Stock Company, is a Ukrainian joint venture based in Kyiv. It was originally made up of a number of entities including several state companies. In a judgment of 22   November 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of a decision of 11   March 1999 in its favour and of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), as it had not been open to the applicant company to seek any form of compensation to make up for the loss of its property as a result of the judicial decision. The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) as regards pecuniary damage was not ready for decision and reserved it. In today’s judgment, the Court awarded the applicant company EUR   334,696 for pecuniary damage and EUR   4,800 for costs and expenses.   Visloguzov v. Ukraine (no. 32362/02) The applicant, Sergey Visloguzov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Frunze (Kherson region, Ukraine). Having served a prison sentence of more than four years and nine months, he complained of the poor conditions of his detention and the lack of effective remedies in this respect, relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). He further complained of the alleged interference with his correspondence and of the alleged seizure and retention by prison officials of the documents necessary for lodging an application with the European Court of Human Rights, relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and Article   34 (right of individual petition). Two violations of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 34 Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Butenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 2109/07, 2112/07, 2113/07 and 2116/07) These cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13   Garagulya v. Russia (no. 12157/06) This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that final judgments in his favour were quashed by way of supervisory review. He 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   Just satisfaction Nural Vural v. Turkey (no. 16009/04)* Rimer and Others v. Turkey (no. 18257/04)* Şatir v. Turkey (no. 36192/03)* In a judgment of 10 March 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the applicants’ complaint that the authorities had deprived them of their property without paying compensation, and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgments the Court awarded EUR   131,449 to the applicant in the first case, EUR   875,000 to the applicants, jointly, in the second case, and EUR   110,000 to the applicant in the third case, in respect of pecuniary damage. The applicants in the second case were awarded EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses.   Nurten Yavuz v. Turkey (no. 14295/05)* This case concerned the failure by the authorities to enforce final decisions with regard to a provisional title deed of property. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Length-of-proceedings cases   VR-Bank Stuttgart eG v. Austria (no. 28571/06) Rogošić v. Croatia (no. 55520/07) Tsaganou and Georgiou v. Greece (no. 18556/08)* Bakırcıoğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 41123/04)* Mkrtchyan v. Ukraine (no. 21939/05) 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. In the case of Mkrtchyan , the applicant also relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). All cases: violation of Article 6 § 1 VR-Bank Stuttgart eG v. Austria, Tsaganou and Georgiou v. Greece and Bakırcıoğlu and Others v. Turkey: violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)   ***   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.