003-3035509-3364001

157 25.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning the Czech Republic, France, Germany and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven 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.     Crabtree v. the Czech Republic (application no. 41116/04) The applicant, Ronald David Crabtree, is a British national who was born in 1957 and lives in Liphook (United Kingdom). He complained that his pre-trial detention in the Czech Republic on suspicion of fraud in 2003 was in violation of, in particular, Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 5 (right to liberty and security), as it had not been extended every three months as required by the relevant provisions of national law. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 5 Just satisfaction: 2,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Renaud v. France (no. 13290/07)*The applicant, Patrice Renaud, is a French national who was born in 1967 and lives in Sens (France). In 2005 (and on appeal in 2006) he was convicted in criminal proceedings for defaming and publicly insulting a citizen discharging a public mandate, on account of remarks concerning the mayor of Sens published on the Internet site of the association of which he was president and webmaster. Relying, in particular, on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complained of his conviction. Violation of Article 10 Just satisfaction: - non-pecuniary damage: the finding of a violation sufficient - pecuniary damage : EUR 1,900 - costs and expenses: EUR 10,000   Kazyulin v. Russia (no. 31849/05) The applicant, Vladimir Kazyulin, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow. He complained that the criminal proceedings against him on charges of hooliganism and unlawful possession of firearms, which started in 1995 and were still pending, had been excessively long and that he had not have an effective remedy in this respect, in violation of Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 6,700 (non-pecuniary damage)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Korovina v. Russia (no. 24178/05) Mordachev v. Russia (no. 7944/05) These two cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that final judgments in their favour had been quashed by way of supervisory review. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)     Length-of-proceedings cases   Kurt Müller v. Germany (no. 36395/07) Kupriny v. Russia (no. 24827/06)   In the above 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. In the case of Kupriny the applicants also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (both cases) Violation of Article 13 (Kupriny) ***   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.