003-2635307-2884880

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   19.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning 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 length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.    Violation of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 5 § 3 Doronin v. Ukraine (application no. 16505/02) Violation of Article 5 § 1 Nikolay Kucherenko v. Ukraine (no. 16447/04)   The applicants are two Ukrainian nationals who live in Ukraine. Igor Doronin was born in 1960 and lives in Kharkiv, and Nikolay Kucherenko was born in 1969 and lives in Odessa. Mr Doronin was arrested and detained in 2000 on suspicion of murdering his grandfather, and Mr Kucherenko in 2002 for drug trafficking. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained that they were detained unlawfully and alleged that their pre-trial detention had been too long.   In the case of Doronin the European Court of Human Rights first noted that his initial 5-day administrative detention in April 2000 had constituted part of the overall period of his pre-trial detention, because during those 5 days he had been treated as a suspect in a criminal case.   In both cases, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1, in particular on account of the applicants having been detained for indefinite periods of time on the sole grounds that they had been studying the case files or that the files had been transmitted to court. In the case of Doronin the Court found a further violation of Article 5 § 1 because he had been detained administratively for 5 days without access to a lawyer, and because his pre-trial detention had been validated retroactively and extended for an indefinite period of time.   The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in the case of Doronin on account of the excessive length, more than two years, of his detention on remand. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded 5,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Doronin and EUR 1,500 to Mr Kucherenko. For costs and expenses, Mr Kucherenko was awarded EUR 27. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Khristov v. Ukraine (no. 24465/04) The applicant, Dmitriy Khristov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1939 and died on 1 August 2006. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Khristov, and subsequently his surviving three children who continued the proceedings before the Court, complained about the unfairness of the domestic administrative proceedings in a case concerning the confiscation of his car and the imposition of a fine. He also complained that he could not recover his car or have its value compensated, as a result of the final judgment in his favour having been quashed by way of extraordinary review. The Court first noted that the evidence in the case file did not disclose any exceptional circumstances of a compelling nature which could have justified the quashing of the final domestic judgment in Mr Khristov’s case, and that the extraordinary review had in fact been an appeal in disguise, in violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court further found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as the quashing of the judgment in the extraordinary review procedure had deprived Mr Khristov of the possibility to seek reimbursement for the wrongful confiscation of his car. The Court awarded Mr Khristov EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Malenko v. Ukraine (no. 18660/03) The applicant, Valeriy Malenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and is currently serving a prison sentence for murder in Ukraine. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Malenko complained of the conditions of his detention, of inadequate medical treatment and of the regular practice of strip searches in the prison in which he is serving his sentence. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the excessive overcrowding and lack of ventilation and nutrition in the establishments where Mr Malenko had been detained, as well as of the clearly insufficient medical care provided to him there. It also found that the regular strip searches which had been carried out on him in front of other detainees upon entry and exit of the prison factory had been offensive to his dignity. The Court awarded Mr Malenko EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Miroshnichenko v. Ukraine (no. 34211/04) The applicant, Roman Miroshnichenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Pavlograd (Ukraine). He was found guilty of theft and robbery and served a five-year prison sentence. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Miroshnichenko complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive and that he had not been able to challenge his detention or seek compensation for it. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessively long period, one year and four months, which Mr Miroshnichenko had spent in pre-trial detention. The Court awarded him EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) (fairness) Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 16404/03) The applicant, Dmitriy Shabelnik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and is serving a life sentence for double murder in Zhytomyr (Ukraine). Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), Mr Shabelnik complained that, in respect of one of the murders, he had been convicted on the basis of evidence obtained in violation of his right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination, and that he had not been able to properly defend himself when questioned at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings concerning the murder in question. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3, because Mr Shabelnik had made self-incriminating statements in the absence of his lawyer and in circumstances which raised reasonable doubts as to the practices used by the investigator interviewing him. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Suptel v. Ukraine (no. 39188/04) The applicant, Aleksandr Suptel, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Kyiv. In 1999 Mr Suptel was arrested on suspicion of incitement to murder; the criminal proceedings against him are still pending. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Suptel complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers who had forced him to confess to that crime. Mr Suptel further complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the following elements taken together: the available medical evidence, the applicant’s detailed testimony, the failure of the authorities to provide a clear and consistent account of his whereabouts during 11 days in May 1999, his confession in circumstances in which he had apparently had no procedural guarantees, and the lack of any plausible alternative explanation as to the origin of his injuries. The Court further found a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length, over nine years, of the criminal proceedings against Mr Suptel. The Court awarded him EUR 11,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Andriychuck v. Ukraine (no. 18024/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bondar and Others v. Ukraine (no. 12380/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kooperativ Kakhovskiy-5 v. Ukraine (no. 20728/04) Kryshchuk v. Ukraine (no. 1811/06) The Court found the above violations in these four cases concerning the domestic authorities’ 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) Buryak v. Ukraine (no. 1866/04) Mitakiy v. Ukraine (no. 183/06) Voishchev v. Ukraine (no. 21263/04) Voronenkov v. Ukraine (no. 41286/04)   ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.