003-2383539-2558191

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   12.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Russia and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 23 Chamber judgments, none of which are final.[1]   Repetitive cases[2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 6 § 1 Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria (application no. 71127/01) The applicants are two Bulgarian nationals, Valentina Nikolaeva Bevacqua, born in 1974, and her 11 year-old-son, S., who live in Bergamo (Italy). They used to live in Sofia but moved to Italy following Ms Bevacqua’s divorce from S.’s father.   The case concerned, in particular, the applicants’ complaint that the Bulgarian authorities failed to ensure respect for their private and family life in the difficult situation caused by Ms Bevacqua’s divorce and her former husband’s behaviour and that the length of custody proceedings with regard to S. were excessive. The applicants relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. However, it held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 8 in that the courts had failed to adopt interim custody measures without delay in a situation which had above all adversely affected the well-being of S. and that insufficient measures had been taken in reaction to the behaviour of Ms Bevacqua’s former husband. The Court awarded the applicants, jointly, 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria (no. 20594/02) The applicant, Penyo Iliev Tzvyatkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Gabrovo (Bulgaria).   In January 1999 he was prosecuted for embezzlement. After being found not guilty in May 2000, he brought proceedings against the State claiming compensation. He complained, among other things, about the amount of the court costs that he had to pay at the end of those proceedings and relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Elezi v. Germany (no. 26771/03) The applicant, Ruzhdi Elezi, is a Serbian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Berlin.   In August 1999 Mr Elezi was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on charges of, among other things, trafficking in human beings. He was ultimately convicted in October 2001. The case concerned his complaint that he was not heard by an “impartial tribunal” during the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Aleksey Makarov v. Russia (no. 3223/07) The applicant, Aleksey Borisovich Makarov, is a Russian national who was born in 1988.   On his way to court to attend a hearing about the Russian authorities’ refusal to register the National Bolshevik Party, Mr Makarov got involved in a fight outside the court building. As a result he was arrested in July 2006 and is currently still in custody on charges of participating in mass disorders, assault and battery. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending. The case concerned his complaint about the excessive length (almost two years) of his pre-trial detention. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded Mr Makarov EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Subbotkin v. Russia (no. 837/03) The applicant, Gennadiy Petrovich Subbotkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Dudinka (Russia).   The case concerned Mr Subbotkin’s claim that he was not informed of appeal hearings with regard to his complaint about a decision to suspend enforcement proceedings in which he had been reinstated to his former job and awarded wage arrears. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Subbotkin EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Two violations of Article 8 Two violations of Article 13 Vlasov v. Russia (no. 78146/01)    The applicant, Aleksey Yuryevich Vlasov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow. He was the director of a diamond manufacturing and export company.   Mr Vlasov was arrested in August 1999 on suspicion of diamond smuggling. Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him: in the first set he was convicted in November 2003 and sentenced to a five year and six months’ prison sentence, suspended for three years; and, the other set of proceedings are currently still pending. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about: the conditions of his detention in Matrosskaya Tishina remand centre and of transport between the remand centre and the courthouse; the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him; and, the excessive restrictions on his correspondence and visits from his family. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence).   The Court found that the fact that Mr Vlasov had had to live, sleep and use the toilet in overcrowded cells with poor lighting and ventilation for almost three years had to have caused him distress or hardship which had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 3 and 13 on account of Mr Vlasov’s conditions of detention in Matrosskaya Tishina remand centre.   The Court noted that Mr Vlasov had been transported more than one hundred times in standard prison vans, which had had no heating and had often been overcrowded, without food, drink or access to a toilet for, on average, six hours per day and at a time (during his trial or at hearings concerning the extension of his detention) when he had most needed his powers of concentration. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a further violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions in which the applicant had been transported to and from court.   The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length – more than two years and ten months – of Mr Vlasov’s pre-trial detention and a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of proceedings in both criminal cases against the applicant.   Finally, the Court held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 8 concerning unjustified restrictions on Mr Vlasov’s family visits, correspondence and exchange of documents and a further violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8.   Mr Vlasov was awarded EUR 35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Artsybashev v. Ukraine (no. 1282/03) Fedko v. Ukraine (no. 17277/03) Ryshkevich v. Ukraine (no. 35312/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Lugovoy v. Ukraine (no. 25821/02) Sergey Nikolayevich Artsybashev was born in 1971 and lives in Makiyivka (Ukraine). In August 1997, he was arrested on suspicion of murder and remanded in custody. He was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment in July 2002.   Dimitriy Alekseyevich Fedko was born in 1972 and lives in Uman (Ukraine). In September 2000, he was charged with being an accomplice to fraud and bribery. In July 2007 that charge had still not been determined.   Eduard Valeryevich Lugovoy was born in 1977 and lives in Chernivtsi (Ukraine). In August 1998, criminal proceedings were brought against him for inflicting grievous bodily harm. His conviction was ultimately upheld in February 2008.   Alexandr Yanovich Ryshkevich was born in 1956 and lives in Listvennoye (Autonomous Republic of Crimea). In August 1995, criminal proceedings were brought against him for causing death through negligent driving. His conviction was ultimately upheld in February 2002.   All the applicants complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Mr Lugovoy also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in all four cases concerning the excessive length of the proceedings. It further held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in the case of Lugovoy. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR 800, each, to Mr Artsybashev and Mr Ryshkevich, EUR 3,200 to Mr Fedko and EUR 2,400 to Mr Lugovoy. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Two violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Two violations of Article 1 Protocol No. 1 Akashev v. Russia (no. 30616/05) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning Russia’s failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour and the quashing of that judgment by way of supervisory review. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kurinnyy v. Russia (no. 36495/02) The Court found the above violation in this case concerning the quashing of a judgment in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Matviyets v. Russia (II) (no. 38999/05)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Moroko v. Russia (no. 20937/07)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kharchuk v. Ukraine (no. 24739/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Saksontseva v. Ukraine (no. 31449/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Nadezhkin v. Russia (no. 42940/02) Podyapolskiy v. Russia (no. 36939/02) Sharov v. Russia (no. 38918/02) Sitnitskiye v. Russia (no. 17701/03) Pashuk v. Ukraine (no. 34103/05) The Court found the above violations in these nine cases concerning Russia’s failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Petrenko v. Ukraine (no. 20330/03) Solaz v. Ukraine (no. 35184/02)   ***   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 Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.