003-2510943-2727699

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   16.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, none of which are final.[1]   Two repetitive cases[2] and two length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Stoine Hristov v. Bulgaria (No. 2) (application no. 36244/02) The applicant, Stoine Zinoviev Hristov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Sofia. In June 1996 he was charged with attempted insurance fraud. A judgment finding him guilty in March 1999 was set aside by the court of appeal because of procedural defects during the preliminary investigation. In June 2006 the Sofia court acquitted the applicant. The public prosecutor appealed. In June 2007 the proceedings against Mr Hristov had lasted more than 11 years and were pending before the Sofia Court of Appeal.   The applicant complained in particular of the excessive length of the proceedings against him. He relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   The applicant, a non-smoker, further alleged that he had had to share a cell with prisoners who smoked. The Court examined this part of the application under Article 8 (right to respect for private life). Noting, however, that the Bulgarian authorities had taken steps to accede to the applicant’s request to be placed in a non-smoking cell, the Court declared this part of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Just satisfaction Vajagić v. Croatia (no. 30431/03) The applicants, Mirko Vajagić and Ružica Vajagić, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1937 and 1942, respectively, and live in Virovitica (Croatia).   In a judgment of 29 June 2006, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the continuing failure of the domestic authorities to decide on the amount of compensation payable to them for their land which had been expropriated to build a road. The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In its judgment today, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 11,000, jointly, in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 4,000, each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,630, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Kyriakides v. Cyprus (no. 39508/05) No violation of Article 6 § 2 Violation of Article 8 Taliadorou and Stylianou v. Cyprus (nos. 39627/05 and 39631/05 The applicants are three Cypriot nationals who live in Limassol (Cyprus): Ilias Kyriakides, born in 1938; Charalambos Taliadorou, born in1940; and, Theodoros Stylianou, born in 1946. Now retired, they served as senior officers with the Cypriot Police.   In an official report by the Ministerial Council issued in 1993 Mr Taliadorou and Mr Stylianou were accused of torturing suspects. In the same report Mr Kyriakides, as those two men’s commanding officer, was accused of negligence. In 1996 all three applicants were dismissed from the police force. On appeal the Supreme Court found that the constitutional rights of the applicants had been violated and, in particular, that they had been dismissed without a trial or disciplinary proceedings. They were reinstated to their former posts in December 1997. Following proceedings for compensation, the domestic courts awarded them damages for the injury they had sustained to their psychological and moral integrity and reputation. The Supreme Court subsequently reversed that award as it considered that the moral injury sustained was not causally linked to the decision ordering their dismissal.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the Supreme Court’s reversal of their award for damages and lack of an effective remedy. The Court examined the complaints under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicants in the case of Taliadorou and Stylianou also relied on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).   The Court noted that the domestic courts had held that significant injury, with severe defamatory consequences, had been caused to the applicants’ moral and psychological integrity through their dismissal. Finding that the Supreme Court had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the reversal of the applicants’ award of moral damages, the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 8. It further held that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaint under Article 13. Lastly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 2 in the case of Taliadorou and Stylianou as it considered that the Supreme Court had not linked the reversal of the award to anything that undermined the applicants’ innocence. The Court awarded Mr Kyriakides EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,650 for costs and expenses. Mr Taliadorou and Mr Stylianou were awarded EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Vamvakas v. Greece (no. 36970/06) The applicant, Alexandros Vamvakas, is a Greek national who was born in 1953 and is currently detained in Korydallos prison in Greece. He lodged an appeal with the prison governor using the standard form supplied by the prison services, consisting of one printed page on which the appellant is required to fill in the date and his personal details and has six lines to state the grounds of appeal. The applicant briefly stated his reasons for appealing on the form and attached an additional document stating in greater detail the grounds on which he was appealing for the judgment sentencing him to four years’ imprisonment to be set aside. The prison governor signed the official form but not the appended document. The applicant complained that the Court of Cassation had declared his appeal inadmissible and refused to take into account the additional pleadings he had appended to his appeal form. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court noted that the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible, among other things, because the applicant had not explained the grounds for his appeal to have the judgment set aside. It must have been very difficult, in the Court’s opinion, to squeeze all the grounds for appeal, clearly and concisely, into six lines and to describe the facts that had given rise to the alleged violations, as required by the Court of Cassation. It was therefore perfectly reasonable that the applicant should have appended an additional document. The applicant had taken care to point out clearly, in capital letters at the end of his pleadings, that supplementary pleadings were to be found appended to the form. Furthermore, when he had lodged his appeal he had been in prison and had no lawyer. The Court could not accept the Court of Cassation’s ancillary argument that it had been unable to take the appended document into account because it had not been signed by the prison governor. The applicant should not be penalised for failing to comply with a formality, responsibility for which lay mainly with the person authorised to receive the appeal, in this instance the prison governor. The Court found that the Court of Cassation had been excessively formalistic with regard to the requirements of the appeal procedure. It found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 Lobanov v. Russia (no. 16159/03) The applicant, Igor Ivanovich Lobanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow.   In October 1998, Mr Lobanov was convicted in Kazakhstan and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. In February 2000, following an agreement between the Russian and Kazakh authorities, the applicant was transferred to Russia. Upon request for supervisory review, a Kazakh court’s decision dated 16 March 2000 ordered Mr Lobanov’s immediate release. He was, however, only released on 10 July 2000.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of his detention in Russia after the Kazakh courts’ remission of his sentence. He also complained that his ensuing claim for compensation was dismissed, in breach of Article 5 § 5.   The Court noted that it had taken the Russian authorities one month and 22 days to release the applicant following the Kazakh courts’ decision. The Court considered that that delay had been incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 and therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of that article. Given that the Russian domestic courts considered his detention had been lawful, the Court further held that the applicant had not had an enforceable right to compensation, in violation of Article 5 § 5.   The Court awarded Mr Lobanov EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,150 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Applicants could no longer claim to be victims of Article 2 No violation of Article 38 § 1 (a) Salatkhanovy v. Russia (no. 17945/03) The applicants, Reyzilya Nasrudinovna Salatkhanova, and her husband, Movlid Yusup-Khadzhiyevich Salatkhanov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1938 respectively and live in Dyshne-Vedeno (Chechen Republic).   On 17 April 2000 the applicants’ 16-year-old son, Ayub Salatkhanov, was walking towards the village market when a Russian serviceman, Ch., part of a military convoy, took aim at him and shot him in the heart. Ayub died on the way to hospital. A criminal investigation was launched following which Grozny Garrison Military Court found Ch. guilty of murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. That judgment was upheld on appeal.   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained about their son’s murder and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their complaint.   The Court noted that the domestic investigation had been launched on the day of the shooting and, in the days that followed, the authorities had taken significant measures such as questioning numerous witnesses and examining the crime scene and the vehicles which had been part of the military convoy. That investigation resulted in a trial which led to Ch.’s conviction and imprisonment. The Court therefore found that the investigation had been effective and that the resulting conviction had amounted to acknowledgement by the authorities of a violation of Ayub Salatkhanov’s right to life. As regards redress, Ayub’s father had withdrawn his claim for damages in the criminal proceedings and, in any event, both applicants were still entitled to claim compensation in civil proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that the applicants could no longer claim to be “victims” of the alleged violation of Article 2. Given that finding, the Court held that no separate issues arose under Article 13. Finally, the Court noted that the Russian Government had submitted documents with detailed information on the progress and results of the investigation which had considerably facilitated its examination of the applicants’ case. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no failure to comply with Article 38 § 1 (a). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sazonov v. Russia (no. 1385/04) The applicant, Igor Alekseyevich Sazonov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Dolgoprudnyy (Russia).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the domestic authorities’ failure to apprise him of an appeal hearing in a libel action. 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 on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to apprise the applicant of the appeal hearing, and awarded Mr Sazonov EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Abdulmanova v. Russia (no. 41564/05) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning Russia’s failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour in good time, and the quashing of that judgment by way of supervisory review. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Fonfrede v. France (no. 44562/04) The Court found the above violation because of the failure to provide the applicant, who was not represented by counsel, with the report of the reporting judge of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Maschino v. France (no. 10447/03) The Court found the above violation in this case, in the absence of an effective remedy for the applicant by which to challenge the legality of home searches and seizures.     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) Violation of Article 13 Štokalo and Others v. Croatia (no. 15233/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Geromanolis and Others v. Greece (nos. 30460/06, 30477/06, 30486/06, 30506/06, 30508/06, 30522/06, 30526/06, 30534/06, 30540/06, 30547/06, 30550/06, 30553/06 and 30563/06)   ***   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.