003-2970394-3271183

989 22.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Croatia, Germany, Russia and Spain   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 Chamber judgments. The judgment available only in French is 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.   Parlov-Tkalcic v. Croatia (no. 24810/06) The applicant, Marija Parlov-Tkalčić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Zlatar (Croatia). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about issues of bias and excessive length concerning civil proceedings brought against her by an insurance company seeking to recover overpaid interest on compensation she had received following a road accident. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 400 euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage)   Bezymyannaya v. Russia (no. 21851/03) Sergey Smirnov v. Russia (no. 14085/04) The applicants are two Russian nationals, Galina Bezymyannaya, who was born in 1973 and lives in Belgorod (Russia), and Sergey Smirnov who was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. Both cases concern refusal of access to a court for the determination of the applicants’ civil claims: Ms Bezymyannaya’s action to have a property contract invalidated was never examined as the domestic courts all declined jurisdiction over her case and Mr Smirnov’s actions against a hire agency and telecommunications provider were refused on the ground that he had no fixed abode. Both applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court). (Both cases) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000, each (non-pecuniary damage)   Butusov v. Russia (no. 7923/04) The applicant, Mikhail Butusov, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence for aggravated robbery in the Chelyabinsk region (Russia). Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Butusov alleged that the appeal hearing to review his detention on remand during the criminal proceedings against him had been delayed and examined in his and his counsel’s absence. Two violations of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 1,800 (non-pecuniary damage)   Makarenko v. Russia (no. 5962/03) The applicant, Anatoliy Makarenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1949. He is a former regional deputy governor. He lived in Smolensk (Russia) until his arrest in December 2002 on charges of aggravated fraud, unlawful possession of ammunition and forgery. He was convicted as charged in June 2004 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the unlawfulness of his arrest, the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and delays in examining his requests for release as well as failure to examine his appeals against his detention orders. Further relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), he also complained about another set of proceedings in which he was convicted of libel following statements he had made to the press accusing a top ranking governmental official of having tried to have him killed. No violation of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 No violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (fairness) No violation of Article 10 Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,730 (costs and expenses)   Skorobogatykh v. Russia (no. 4871/03) The applicant, Sergey Skorobogatykh, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and is serving a prison sentence in Kaliningrad (Russia) for possession of illegal drugs. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about the conditions of his detention on remand pending investigation and trial. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he further complained that the domestic courts did not ensure his presence at a hearing concerning his compensation claims with regard to those appalling detention conditions. Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Tapia Gasca and D. v. Spain (no. 20272/06) The applicants are Maria Tapia Gasca, a Spanish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Saragossa (Spain), and her daughter, D., who was born in 1994. Mrs Tapia Gasca complained about her inability to enforce judicial decisions granting her custody of D. after the child’s abduction in 1997, at the age of two, by her former partner. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mrs Tapia Gasca complained in particular about the inactivity and inefficiency on the part of the Spanish authorities, especially when she filed her first complaint, and also alleged that the public prosecutor and judicial authorities failed to be cooperative throughout the very lengthy proceedings as a result of which she remained separated from her daughter. No violation of Article 8     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Gudkov v. Russia (no. 13173/03) Talysheva v. Russia (no. 24559/04) These cases concerned, in particular, the applicants’ complaints that final judgments in their favour were quashed by way of supervisory review. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction Ignatyeva v. Russia (no. 10277/05) In a judgment of 3 April 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in this case concerning the quashing of final judgments in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review, and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In its judgment today, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,500 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage).     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 Jesse v. Germany (no. 10053/08) Kressin v. Germany (no. 21061/06) Gorovaya v. Russia (no. 20882/04) Lekhanova v. Russia (no. 43372/06) MP Kineskop v. Russia (no. 16141/05) Makarova v. Russia (no. 20886/04)   ***   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) 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.