CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 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 } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s163D3B2F { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 550 08.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Azerbaijan, Germany and   Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments. The judgment available only in French is indicated with an asterisk   (*).   Hajiyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan (applications nos. 50766/07, 50786/07, 50871/07 and 50913/07) Isgandarov and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 50711/07, 50793/07, 50848/07, 50894/07 and 50924/07) The applicants are nine Azerbaijani nationals, holders of vouchers for flats in a recently ‑ constructed building in Baku, which are currently occupied by internally ‑ displaced families from regions under the control of Armenian military forces, following the Nagorno ‑ Karabakh conflict. The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of domestic court judgments which 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. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: within three months, Azerbaïjan shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the domestic courts’ judgments in the applicants’ favour. It shall also pay to each applicant sums ranging from 7,174 euros (EUR) to EUR   13,051 (pecuniary damage), and from EUR   1,600 to EUR   4,800 (non-pecuniary damage)   Döring v. Germany (no. 40014/05)* The applicant, Peter Döring, is a German national who was born in 1956 and lives in Berlin. He is the father of a child born out of wedlock in 1995 of a woman from whom he subsequently separated. In early 2002 he applied for full parental authority to be taken away from the mother, and also for access to the child. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of the ensuing proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (in respect of the length of the proceedings concerning parental authority) Just satisfaction: 4,000 EUR (non-pecuniary damage) and 900 EUR (costs and expenses)   Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia (no. 14049/08) Yuldashev v. Russia (no. 1248/09) The applicants, Abdulazhon Isakov and Murod Yuldashev, are Uzbek nationals who were born in 1963 and 1972 respectively. They were arrested in Russia and placed in detention pending extradition in March 2008 and October 2007, respectively; they have both since been released. They alleged that their detention pending extradition had been unlawful and that, if extradited to their country of origin, where they are on a wanted list for suspected involvement in extremist movements, they would be at real risk of politically-motivated persecution, torture and ill-treatment. They relied on Article   3 (prohibition of torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). (If extradition orders enforced) Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 Just satisfaction: to Mr   Isakov EUR 20,000, and to Mr   Yuldashev EUR   25,000 (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 5,500, each (costs and expenses)   Aleksandr Matveyev v. Russia (no. 14797/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Matveyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Pestovo (Novgorod Region, Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr   Matveyev complained in particular about the appalling conditions of his detention on remand in facilities in Petersburg and Moscow during criminal proceedings against him for murder. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,300 (non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses)   ***   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 Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .