CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 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 } .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 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt }   491 17.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, available only in English.     Gubin v. Russia (application no. 8217/04) The applicant, Aleksey Gubin, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Moscow. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the appalling conditions of his detention on remand from August 2003 to September 2004 on suspicion of kidnapping and rape. He further complained that one of the appeal hearings with regard to the extension of his pre-trial detention had been held in his and his counsel’s absence, in breach of Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: 11,800 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Kolesnik v. Russia (no. 26876/08) The applicants are, Irina Kolesnik, a Turkmenistan national, and, her husband, Viktor Kolesnik, a Russian national; who live in the Tula Region (Russia). The case concerned Irina Kolesnik’s complaint that, if extradited to Turkmenistan, where she stands accused of fraud, she would be at real risk of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security), she also alleged that her detention pending extradition between August 2007 and August 2008 had been unlawful and not subject to judicial review. (if Ms Kolesnik were to be expelled) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) (Ms Kolesnik) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 Just satisfaction: to Ms Kolesnik EUR 24,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and to both applicants EUR 6,679   , jointly (costs and expenses)   Logvinenko v. Russia (no. 44511/04) The applicant, Viktor Logvinenko, is a Russian national who is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence in the Ivanovo Region (Russia) for manslaughter. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), he alleged that his pre-trial detention from September to December 2005 had been unlawful as it had not been covered by a court order and that the overall length of his pre-trial detention – almost three and half years – had been excessive. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Ovchinnikov v. Russia (no. 9807/02) The applicant, Igor Ovchinnikov, is a Russian national who lives in St.   Petersburg (Russia). Former deputy mayor of the town of Magadan, he was convicted in April 2001 of bribery and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the deplorable conditions of his detention from December 1999 to August 2003 in a Magadan facility. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 32,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Roslov v. Russia (no. 40616/02) The applicant, Andrey Roslov, is a Russian national who lives in Orel (Russia). A former secondary school principal in Orel, he complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for misappropriation. His conviction was set aside in January 2005 due to lack of evidence. He relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). No violation of Article 6 § 1   Shcherbakov v. Russia (no. 23939/02) The applicant, Igor Shcherbakov, is a Russian national who lives in Tula (Russia). Arrested and detained in 1995 on suspicion of murder, he was ultimately released in 2002 for lack of evidence. He was subsequently awarded compensation. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained in particular about the appalling conditions of his detention in a Tula remand centre. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 18,000 (non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses)   Shulenkov v. Russia (no. 38031/04) The applicant, Aleksandr Shulenkov, is a Russian national who is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence in the Tula Region (Russia) for robbery. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he alleged that his detention from April to November 2004 had been unlawful and that his appeals against the orders for his continued detention had not been properly examined. Violation of Article 5 § 1 Two violations of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage)     ***   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.