003-2486060-2700289

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   25.9.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Norway, Russia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 Chamber judgments, none of which are final[1].   Repetitive cases[2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (c) Paraponiaris v. Greece (application no. 42132/06) The applicant,Vassilios-Panormitis Paraponiaris, is a Greek national who was born in 1948 and lives on the island of Leros (Greece).   The applicant, who worked at a filling station, was prosecuted for smuggling petroleum products. He complained about the decision of the Indictment Division, which terminated the criminal proceedings because they were time-barred, but fined him about 54,086 euros (EUR) because it had been “objectively established that he had committed the offence of smuggling”. The applicant relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial), 2 (presumption of innocence) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the Indictment Division had not given the applicant full guarantees in respect of the requirements of a fair trial and the rights of the defence, noting, among other things, that the fine had been imposed on the applicant following a hearing which had not been held in public and at which he had not been present or represented. It accordingly found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c).   Furthermore, the Court considered that the terms used by the Indictment Division made a distinction, which the Court deemed artificial, between a finding of guilt and a finding that an offence had been “objectively” established. The reasoning of the Indictment Division resembled a declaration of guilt and was therefore incompatible with the presumption of innocence. The Court accordingly also found a violation of Article 6 § 2. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 6 § 1 K.T. v. Norway (no. 26664/03) The applicant, K.T., is a Norwegian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Stavanger (Norway). Since his former wife moved to Finland in 2001, the applicant has had care of their two boys, born in 1994 and 1996 respectively.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the child welfare services carrying out a second investigation into his ability to take care of his sons despite a previous investigation showing that his former wife’s allegations were groundless.   He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). The Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8, as the second investigation, including the manner of its implementation, had been necessary for the purposes of Article 8 § 2. In particular, it found nothing to indicate that the authorities’ assessment as to the necessity of opening a new investigation had gone beyond their wide margin of appreciation and that the child welfare services had not failed to strike a proper balance between the applicant’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of certain personal data and the best interests of the children.   The applicant also complained that the Norwegian courts had subsequently refused to examine the merits of his case, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court concluded by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1, noting in particular that, whereas the lower courts had dismissed the applicant’s case summarily without a review of the merits, the Supreme Court had reviewed the merits of the case. The Court further held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the case under Article 13. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 2 (life and investigation) Violation of Article 3 (treatment in respect of the applicants) Violation of Article 5 (in respect of the applicant’s son) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 Akhmadova and Akhmadov v. Russia (no. 20755/04) The applicants, Ayset Khamidovna Akhmadova, and her husband, Yusup Sayd-Akhmetovich Akhmadov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1953 respectively and live in Urus-Martan (Chechnya). They have four children. Their eldest son, Adnan Yusupovich Akhmadov, was born in 1982; they have not seen him since 29 September 2002.   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that their eldest son disappeared after being abducted by Russian servicemen during a security operation in Urus-Martan and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegation. They relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court found that the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform and in military vehicles had been able to move freely about the town past curfew strongly supported the applicants’ allegation that these were Russian servicemen conducting a security operation. Drawing inferences from the Russian Government’s failure – despite specific requests from the Court – to submit documents from the investigation file which were in their exclusive possession or to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court considered that Adnan Akhmadov had been apprehended by Russian servicemen. There had been no reliable news of him since the date of the abduction and the Government had not submitted any explanation as to what had happened to him after his abduction. In the context of the conflict in Chechnya, when a person had been detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, that situation could be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Adnan Akhmadov or of any news of him for more than five years supported that assumption. Therefore Adnan Akhmadov had to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen. Noting that the authorities had not justified the use of lethal force by their agents, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicant’s son. It also held that there had been a further violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Adnan Akhmadov had disappeared.   The Court also considered that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicants’ mental suffering as a result of the disappearance of their son, their inability to find out what had happened to him, and the manner in which the authorities had handled their complaints.   The Court further found that Adnan Akhmadov had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in that Article.   Finally, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 and that no separate issues arose under Article 13 in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5.   The Court awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR 3,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 3,650 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Three violations of Article 6 § 3 (d) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia (no. 30997/02) The applicants, Sergey Anatolyevich Polufakin and Ivan Vladimirovich Chernyshev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1966 and 1977 respectively. They are currently serving sentences for robbery with violence in correctional facility UE-148/5 in Sviyazhsk (Russia).   Mr Polufakin complained about the conditions of his detention in that facility and in remand prisons as well as during transportation by train between those prisons. He also alleged that he was ill-treated by the convoying officers during his transportation. Suffering from hepatitis, Mr Chernyshev complained about a lack of adequate medical treatment in UE-148/5. Both applicants relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an individual sleeping place allocated to Mr Polufakin in correctional facility UE-148/5 in 2002, and saw no need to decide separately on his complaint about other alleged deficiencies of the conditions of detention in that facility. The Court declared inadmissible the remainder of Mr Polufakin’s complaints under Article 3, as well as Mr Chernyshev’s complaints under this head.   Further relying on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), the applicants complained that, at their trial, self-incriminating statements made in their lawyer’s absence had been used against them and that they had not been given the possibility to cross-examine the prosecution or defence witnesses.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the alleged self-incrimination in respect of both applicants. It considered that there had been two violations of Article 6 § 3 (d) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 in respect of the applicants, firstly on account of the victims’ absence at the trial, and secondly in that the domestic courts had failed to ensure the presence at the hearing of two prosecution witnesses.   The Court found unanimously that there had been a further violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 in that the domestic courts had failed to summon two witnesses for Mr Chernyshev. Finally, it found no violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 concerning the domestic courts’ failure to summon other defence witnesses. The other alleged violations were declared inadmissible.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR 8,000 to Mr Polufakin and EUR 5,000 to Mr Chernyshev. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) Seliverstov v. Russia (no. 19692/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Vladimirovich Seliverstov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Sarapul (Russia). In April 2001 Mr Seliverstov was found guilty of bribe-taking and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint that on appeal the domestic courts subsequently recharacterised his acts as attempted large-scale fraud and failed to inform him in advance of the new charge.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), § 3 (a) (right to be informed promptly of the accusation against him), § 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence) and § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) on account of the recharacterisation of the applicant’s offence by the appeal court, as his right to be informed in detail of the nature of the accusation against him and his right to have adequate time for the preparation of his defence had been infringed.   The Court considered that no examination of the applicant’s further complaints under Article 6 was required. Mr Seliverstov was awarded EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   No violation of Article 6 § 1 No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Krestyaninovy v. Russia (no. 27049/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Antonova v. Russia (no. 25749/05) Levin v. Russia (no. 35893/04) Shafranov v. Russia (no. 24766/04) Kripak v. Ukraine (no. 6164/05) Ustimova v. Ukraine (no. 24335/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 Lisovol v. Ukraine (no. 22343/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Tishchenko v. Ukraine (no. 33892/04) The Court found the above violations in these eight cases concerning the State’s failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all. The Court held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in the case of Ustimova.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Savov and Others v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 12582/03)     ***   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 Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.