003-3010646-3320046

093 04.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Bulgaria, Estonia and Germany   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments. The judgment available only in French is indicated with an asterisk (*).   One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   Dechko Raykov v. Bulgaria (application no. 35256/02)* The applicant, Dechko Donchev Raykov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Belomortsi, in the municipality of Omurtag (Bulgaria). In October 2000 he was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of rape; he was convicted with final effect in July 2002. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged that he had been subjected to police brutality during questioning and that no effective investigation had been conducted in that regard. No violation of Article 3   Gerdzhikov v. Bulgaria (no. 41008/04) The applicant, Dimitar Iliev Gerdzhikov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Rosen (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Gerdzhikov complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for mismanagement of the assets of an agricultural co-operative for which he had been acting as liquidator Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: 6,400 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 600 (costs and expenses)   Malkov v. Estonia (no. 31407/07) The applicant, Deniss Malkov, is a stateless person who was born in 1979 and is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence in Estonia for murder and destruction of property. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Malkov complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Gromzig v. Germany (no. 13791/06) No violation of Article 6 § 1     ***   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.