CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 juin 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 } .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 } .s7C768949 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; 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 }   475 10.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Greece, Russia, Switzerland and   “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16   Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk   (*).   One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Garayev v. Azerbaijan (application no. 53688/08) The applicant, Shaig Garayev, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1981. He has been detained since April 2008 in a remand facility in Baku pending extradition to Uzbekistan on charges of the murder of six persons and the mutilation of their corpses. Relying in particular on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged that, if extradited, he would be at risk of being tortured by the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities. He notably submitted that the Uzbek authorities had persecuted him and his family and subjected them to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment in the past. He also complained that his detention pending extradition was unlawful and that there had been no judicial review of his detention, in breach of Article   5   §§   1   (f) and   4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention. If expulsion order enforced: violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 Just satisfaction: 16,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,500 (costs and expenses)   Filipov v. Bulgaria (no. 40495/04) The applicant, Dimitar Petrov Filipov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention as well as of the criminal proceedings against him on charges of extortion. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 2,300 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 700 (costs and expenses)   Marinova v. Bulgaria (no. 29972/02)* The applicant, Nedka Marinova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Lovech (Bulgaria). Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life), she alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the death of her daughter, whose body was found in a river in 2001. Mrs   Marinova blamed the death on her daughter’s former partner. No violation of Article 2   Sabeva v. Bulgaria (no. 44290/07) The applicant, Evgeniya Sabeva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Stara Zagora (Bulgaria). The case concerned Ms   Sabeva’s complaint about the unlawfulness of her confinement and the conditions of her detention in a psychiatric hospital. She relied in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   1, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security). No violation of Article 3 No violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5   Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 63106/00) The applicant, Vasil Petrov, is a Bulgarian national of Roma/Gypsy origin who was born in 1980 and lives in Velingrad (Bulgaria). The case concerned an incident in which two police officers, believing that Mr   Petrov was trying to steal some hens, gave chase when he tried to escape and fired shots at him to stop him. As a result of the shooting, Mr   Petrov’s kidney and part of his liver had to be removed. Relying on Articles   2 (right to life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that the life-threatening force used against him had been unwarranted and that the ensuing investigation into the incident had been ineffective. He also alleged that racist motives had been behind the excessive force used against him and that the authorities had failed to investigate that allegation, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   2. Violations of Article 2 (right to life and investigation) Violation of Article 13 No violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (costs and expenses)   Peca v. Greece (No. 2) (no. 33067/08)* The applicant, Kastriot Peca, is an Albanian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Arren (Albania). Criminal proceedings were brought against him in 2004, leading to his conviction for drug trafficking, criminal association and illegal possession of weapons. Relying in substance on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), he complained about the dismissal of his appeal to the Court of Cassation. He had lodged his appeal without the assistance of counsel, as he was entitled to do under Greek law, and had subsequently asked the President of the Court of Cassation to have counsel appointed to represent him before that court. His request for legal assistance was rejected, however, on the grounds that his appeal mentioned none of the grounds listed exhaustively in the Code of Criminal Procedure, although the applicant maintained that he did mention one such ground, namely the lack of reasoning for the impugned judgment. He was not notified that his request had been rejected until the very morning of the hearing before the Court of Cassation, making it inevitable that his appeal would be declared inadmissible for failure to appear, given that under Greek law the parties must be represented by counsel in hearings before that court. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Tritsis v. Greece (no. 3127/08)* The applicant, Fotios Tritsis, is a Greek national who lives in Athens. He owns some land on the island of Kefalonia, where he built a holiday home. In 2000 changes were made to the land-use plan and planning conditions for an area that included his land. He challenged the changes before the administrative courts, together with two other people. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), he complained about the rejection of his appeal on the grounds that his interests had not been the same as those of the other complainants. Under the same Article (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he also complained about the length of the proceedings. Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Mukhutdinov v. Russia (no. 13173/02) The applicant, Albert Mukhutdinov, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in the Republic of Mordoviya (Russia) for, among other offences, murder and illegal use of firearms. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the deplorable conditions of his pre-trial detention in various facilities from September 1998 to January 2002. He further complained under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about his inability to take part in the supervisory-review hearing in his criminal case as well as the courts’ refusal to secure his participation in the civil case brought by the victims of the murder charge against him. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 26,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Petr Ponomarev v. Russia (no. 35411/05) The applicant, Petr Ponomarev, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in St   Petersburg (Russia). Relying in particular on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), Mr   Ponomarev complained about having been detained unlawfully in 2004 during the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of financial wrongdoings Violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Sharkunov and Mezentsev v. Russia (no. 75330/01) The applicants, Vyacheslav Sharkunov and Aleksey Mezentsev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1969 and 1971 respectively and are currently serving prison sentences for murder in the Kurgan Region (Russia). Relying in particular on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   6 (right to a fair trial), both applicants complained of having been ill-treated while in police custody, in May and December 1999 respectively, in order to extract their confessions to murdering two persons, and about the criminal proceedings against them having been unfair. No violation of Article 3 (2nd applicant) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (fairness) Just satisfaction: to Mr Mezentsev EUR 1,800 (non-pecuniary damage)   Shenoyev v. Russia (no. 2563/06) The applicant, Anton Shenoyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region (Russia). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Shenoyev complained of his detention before and during trial in criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of unlawful possession of firearms and two robberies of local post offices, and about those criminal proceedings having lasted for too long. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sherstobitov v. Russia (no. 16266/03) The applicant, Valeriy Sherstobitov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Krasnoyarsk (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr   Sherstobitov complained about having been tortured in police custody in January 2002 on suspicion of sexually assaulting a nine-year old boy. He also complained about having been detained unlawfully and for too long pending trial as well as about the criminal proceedings against him having lasted for too long, in breach of Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 27,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,100 (costs and expenses)   Borer v. Switzerland (no. 22493/06)* The applicant, Marcel Borer, is a Swiss national who was born in 1970. In 1997 he was sentenced to 11   years’ imprisonment for murder and theft, and required to undergo psychotherapy. Upon completion of his sentence, on 6   January 2006, he was kept in detention on account of the high risk of his reoffending. Relying on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant submitted that there had been no legal basis for keeping him in detention once he had served his sentence. Violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Demerdžieva and Others v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no.   19315/06) The application was lodged with the Court by three Macedonian nationals, Nataša Demerdžieva, Aleksandar Šuklev and Živko Demerdžiev (now deceased), who were born in 1979, 1986 and 1941 respectively and live/d in Skopje. The applicants were sentenced in November 2004 to different terms of imprisonment for drug trafficking. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), they complained that the criminal proceedings against them had been unfair in particular since the Supreme Court had wrongly rejected their appeal. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   2,500, jointly (costs and expenses)   Spasovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 45150/05) The applicant, Tomislav Spasovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Skopje. He was seriously injured in an explosion caused by a bomb placed in a house after the 2001 armed conflict in the country. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained that the proceedings he had brought against the municipality of Aracinovo and the State for compensation for that incident had been unfair and, in particular, that he had been denied access to a court. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR   1,000 to “Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republic of Macedonia” (costs and expenses)     Length-of-proceedings case   Kotseva-Dencheva v. Bulgaria (no. 12499/05) In this case, the applicant complained in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial 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)     ***   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 [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   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.