CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .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 } 582 22.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Greece, Luxembourg 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   (*).   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Melis v. Greece (application no. 30604/07)* The applicant, Nikolaos Melis, is a United States national of Greek origin, who was born in   1929 and lives in New York (United States of America). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that his application to reopen civil proceedings which, in his view, had been flawed as a result of false evidence (given by a witness who had been convicted on that account) had been rejected as being out of time. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Ewert v. Luxembourg (no. 49375/07)* The applicant, Charles Ewert, is a Luxembourg national who was born in 1952 and is currently being held in Luxembourg Prison. He was sentenced to 20   years’ imprisonment for the attempted murder of a businessman. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) of the Convention, he complained that, during the proceedings against him, the investigators had seized a file containing correspondence with his lawyer. Under Article   6 (right to a fair trial), he alleged, in particular, that the Court of Cassation had been excessively formalistic in dismissing some of his grounds of appeal. No violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Samoshenkov and Strokov v. Russia (nos. 21731/03 and 1886/04) The applicants, Andrey Samoshenkov and Igor Strokov, are Russian nationals. They were born in 1962 and 1967 respectively and are currently serving prison sentences in the Chelyabinsk Region (Russia), Mr   Samoshenkov for aggravated murder and both applicants for robbery. They complained about the unfairness of the proceedings; Mr   Samoshenkov about the absence of legal representation at the appeal proceedings with regard to the murder charge and Mr   Strokov about the unlawfulness of part of his detention. Mr   Samoshenkov further complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. They relied on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). (Mr   Strokov) Violation of Article 5 § 1 (Mr   Samoshenkov) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (Mr   Samoshenkov) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (fairness) Just satisfaction: to Mr Samoshenkov EUR 2,400 and to Mr   Strokov EUR 9,000 (non ‑ pecuniary damage)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Matou and Others v. Greece (no. 54837/08)* Petridis v. Greece (no. 53351/07)* Tsoukalas v. Greece (no. 12286/08)* In these cases, the applicants complained under Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) about the excessive length of (non ‑ criminal) proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 – all cases Violation of Article 13 – all cases   ***   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.