CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 juillet 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; 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 } 534 01.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Croatia, Greece and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk   (*).     Hađi v. Croatia (application no. 42998/08) The applicant Đerđet Hađi, is a Croatian national who lives in Osijek (Croatia). Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the unlawfulness of his detention from 12   December   2007 to 30   January 2008 on charges of aggravated larceny as well as about the inadequacy of the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of that detention. He was released in January 2008 due to lack of evidence. No violation of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,540 (costs and expenses)   Vusić v. Croatia (no. 48101/07) The applicant, Zvonko Vusić, is a Croatian national who lives in Varaždin (Croatia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, he complained about the unfairness of proceedings in which he had sought to repossess a house in Varaždin. In particular, he alleged that the Supreme Court had declared his appeal on points of law admissible in February 2004 and then, a year later, had declared it inadmissible without any valid explanation. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: -damages: the most appropriate form of redress would be to re-open the proceedings in accordance with the requirements of Article   6   §   1 -costs and expenses: EUR 1,356   Bala v. Greece (no. 40876/07)* The applicant, Martin Bala, is an Albanian national is currently in Korydallos Prison (Greece), having been sentenced in 2007 to three years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the domestic courts’ refusal to grant him leave to appear in person so that he could challenge the public prosecutor’s submissions in favour of his continued pre-trial detention. Violation of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Vogiatzis and Others v. Greece (no. 17588/08)* The applicants are nine Greek nationals who live in the Attica region of Greece. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), they complained of the delay by the State in complying with a court judgment awarding them additional compensation in a case concerning the expropriation of their land with a view to the widening of a trunk road. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000, to the 8th applicant, and EUR   5,000, to each of the other applicants (non-pecuniary damage)   Nedayborshch v. Russia (no. 42255/04) The applicant is Sergey Nedayborshch, a Russian national who is currently serving a prison sentence in Kopeysk (Chelyabinsk Region, Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions in which he had been held in Kopeysk temporary detention centre. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Nikiforov v. Russia (no. 42837/04) The applicant, Vyacheslav Nikiforov, is a Russian national who is currently serving a seven ‑ year prison sentence in Kostroma (Russia) for robbery. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that he had been beaten during his police custody in December 2003 and that the ensuing investigation into that allegation had been ineffective. Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR   30,000 (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 [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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.