CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 septembre 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 709 30.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk   (*).   One repetitive case [2] can be found at the end of the press release.     Deyanov v. Bulgaria (application no. 2930/04) The applicant, Todor Deyanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Sofia. The case concerned Mr   Deyanov’s complaint that the authorities had failed to react adequately to the disappearance in 1997 of his eight-year-old son, Savestin, and that related civil proceedings to which he had been a party had been unreasonably long. The case was examined under Article   2 (right to life), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Savestin disappeared when out playing; he has never been found. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: 2,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR   400 (costs and expenses)   Marinov v. Bulgaria (no. 37770/03)* The applicant, Bilyan Marinov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Shumen (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, Mr   Marinov alleged that he had been beaten by two police officers who had stopped him in the street one night to check his identity. He claimed they had hit him in the mouth with a torch and had kicked him repeatedly, then had left him on the ground unconscious. He also complained that the Bulgarian courts had failed to convict his presumed aggressors. No violation of Article 3   Žirovnický v. Czech Republic (no. 23661/03) The applicant, Albert Žirovnický, is a Czech national who was born in 1968 and is serving a prison sentence in Mirov (Czech Republic). Arrested in March 2001 on suspicion of murder, he was convicted as charged and sentenced to 16   years’ imprisonment in March 2002. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the unlawfulness and lack of a speedy review of his detention pending the criminal proceedings against him. He also complained that under domestic law he had had no enforceable right to compensation for his detention, in breach of Article   5   §   5. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Korogodina v. Russia (no. 33512/04) The applicant, Lidiya Korogodina, is a Russian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Orel (Russia). Ms   Korogodina complained about the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the death in 2000 of her 42-year-old son, who she alleged had died as a result of medical negligence, in breach of Article   2 (right to life). Violation of Article 2 (right to life - investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 18,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 220 (costs and expenses)   Pakhomov v. Russia (no. 44917/08) The applicant, Anton Pakhomov, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Artyom (Primorye Region, Russia). He was convicted and sentenced, in December 2007, to eight years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking of which he was acquitted and released in January 2010. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant, who suffers from tuberculosis, complained about the inadequacy of the medical care during his imprisonment. No violation of Article 3   Vladimir Polishchuk and Svetlana Polishchuk v. Ukraine (no. 12451/04) The applicants, Vladimir Polishchuk, and his wife, Svetlana Polishchuk, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1966 and live in Tokmak (Ukraine). The case concerned the alleged unlawfulness of a search carried out by the police of the applicants’ flat in March 2001 following a crime – six windows had been broken – committed in the neighbourhood, of which Mr Polishchuk had been a suspect. The applicants relied in particular on Articles   8 (right to respect for home) and   13 (right to an effective remedy). (Mrs Polishchuk) Violation of Article 8 (Mrs Polishchuk) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicants     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Matveyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 43578/06, 19435/07, 21338/07, 23022/07, 23593/07, 25297/07, 28442/07, 28660/07, 30287/07, 33161/07, 40602/07, 51107/07, 51354/07, 52279/07, 52280/07, 42131/08, 43194/08, 51692/08, 52128/08, 58990/08, 59582/08, 59834/08, 60533/08, 60790/08, 3456/09, 3514/09, 4193/09, 4550/09, 5402/09, 6194/09, 6198/09, 7214/09, 7229/09 and 9021/09)* This case concerned the applicants’ complaints that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour in good time. They relied in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     ***   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)   [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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.