003-2952402-3249121

948 10.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Austria, France and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 30 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   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.     Almesberger v. Austria (application no. 13471/06) The applicant, Alfred Almesberger, is an Austrian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Pischelsdorf (Austria). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought in 1999 against him for failing to carry a fire-extinguisher in his truck while transporting dangerous goods. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 2,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses)   Just satisfaction Grifhorst v. France (no. 28336/02)* The applicant, Robert Grifhorst, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1949 and lives in Erts la Massana (Andorra). In a judgment of 26 February 2009 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention on account of the disproportionate nature of the penalty imposed on Mr Grifhorst for failing to declare a sum of money when going through customs. The Court also held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. Struck out (friendly settlement between the parties)   Kreydich v. Ukraine (no. 48495/07) The applicant, Viktor Kreydich, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Kyiv (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), he complained that if extradited to Belarus, he would risk being tortured and facing an unfair trial. He further alleged that his detention pending extradition had been unlawful, that he was not able to challenge his arrest and subsequent detention before the national courts, and that he had no right to compensation for his detention. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Matsyuk v. Ukraine (no. 1751/03) The applicant, Vadym Matsyuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Bila Tserkva (Ukraine). Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complained of not having had access to court as a result of the domestic courts’ refusal to examine a complaint he lodged against a decision of the tax police on the ground that that decision had not been given in the correct form. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (access) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage   Mikhaylyuk and Petrov v. Ukraine (no. 11932/02) The applicants, Iraida Mikhayluuk and Vladimir Petrov, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1951 respectively and live in Odessa (Ukraine). Mr Petrov worked between 1976 and 1996 for a penitentiary institution on the premises of which he still has his permanent place of residence registered. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), the applicants complained about the authorities having opened the letters addressed to them and sent to that penitentiary colony. Violation of Article 8 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,200, each (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 81, jointly (costs and expenses)   Mironenko and Martenko v. Ukraine (no. 4785/02) The applicants, Vladimir Mironenko and Nikolay Martenko, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1971 respectively and live in Kiev. Relying on Articles 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complained of the unlawfulness of their arrest, detention and criminal proceedings brought against them in February 2000 on suspicion of involvement in a kidnapping. Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Panchenko v. Ukraine (no. 10911/05) The applicant, Ivan Panchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Brovary (Ukraine). As a disabled war veteran, in 2001 he brought civil proceedings against the town council asking to be provided with an apartment on a priority basis. Relying among others on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), as well as 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained in particular about the lengthy non-enforcement of a domestic court judgment of June 2003 (ordering the relevant ministry to provide him an apartment within three months) and about the lack of an effective remedy to challenge non-enforcement at domestic level. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,200 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 23 (costs and expenses)   Shagin v. Ukraine (no. 20437/05) The applicant, Igor Shagin, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Kiev. On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were opened on the suspicion that a network of private commercial enterprises, “Top-Service”, directed by the applicant, organised an armed group with conspiracy to kill State officials and businessmen who were allegedly obstructing its business. In March 2004 the applicant was found guilty of several offences including forming a criminal organisation and incitement to murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Relying, in particular, on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair trial), he complained that he did not have a public trial and that certain statements by high-ranking public officials published in the media concerning his case affected negatively the presumption of innocence in his respect. Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Biletskaya v. Ukraine (no. 25003/06) Kasyanchuk v. Ukraine (no. 4187/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gimadulina and Others v. Ukraine (30675/06, 30785/06, 32818/06, 34468/06 and 49001/06) Kutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 41936/05) Tamara Vasilyevna Len and Grigoriy Kuzmich Len v. Ukraine (no. 825/05) Savula v. Ukraine (no. 12868/05) Skrypets v. Ukraine (no. 41236/06) Vasilchuk v. Ukraine (no. 31387/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ilchyshyn and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 8802/07, 8729/07, 8739/07, 8991/07, 8996/07, 9447/07 and 10058/07) Karpukhan and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 45524/05, 39316/07, 39326/07, 39329/07, 39331/07, 39332/07, 39333/07, 39335/07, 39337/07, 39339/07, 39342/07, 39360/07, 39407/07, 39411/07, 39418/07, 39422/07, 39426/07, 39429/07, 39433/07, and 45858/07) Khrypko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 43507/07, 45747/07, 46107/07, 46109/07, 50412/07, 917/08, 964/08, 1796/08 and 9046/08)* Lyudmyla Naumenko v. Ukraine (no. 14728/07)* Ramus and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 11867/08, 11868/08, 28969/08, 28971/08, 28979/08 and 37484/08) Sergeyeva v. Ukraine (no. 43798/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Logachova and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 4510/05, 13273/05, 26704/06 and 30757/06) Osokin and Osokina v. Ukraine (nos. 8437/06 and 8470/06) Shastin and Shastina v. Ukraine (no. 12381/04) Yangolenko v. Ukraine (no. 14077/05)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Panov v. Ukraine (no. 21231/05)   These cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the Ukrainian authorities failed to enforce a final judgment or decision in their favour in good time or at all. They mainly relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property); and some also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Goriany v. Austria (no. 31356/04) Bendryt v. Ukraine (no. 1661/04) Goncharov v. Ukraine (no. 7867/06)     ***   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 Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 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) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.