003-3147082-3493042

451 03.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, available only in English.   One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Galeyev v. Russia (application no. 19316/09) The applicant, Dmitriy Galeyev, is a Belarus national who was born in 1974. On a wanted list in Belarus on extortion charges, Mr Galeyev was arrested in Russia in July 2008 and placed in custody; the request to have him extradited to Belarus was subsequently accepted by the Russian prosecuting authorities. He was released in September 2009 and is currently living in Novokuybyshevsk (Samara Region, Russia). Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged that his detention pending extradition in Russia had been unlawful. Violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant within time-limit   Kamaliyevy v. Russia (no. 52812/07) The applicants are Abdugani Kamaliyev, an Uzbekistan national, and his wife, Maymuna Kamaliyeva, a Russian national, both born in 1958. The case concerned in particular Mr Kamaliyev’s deportation to Uzbekistan in December 2007 for a breach of residence regulations despite the European Court of Human Right’s indication to the Russian Government under Rule 39 (interim measures) of its Rules of Court not to expel him pending its decision. Mr Kamaliyev is apparently currently serving a prison sentence in Uzbekistan for belonging to an extremist religious organisation; his representatives have had no contact with him since his expulsion. His wife died in August 2008. The applicants raised a number of complaints about the expulsion, in particular under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 34 (right of individual petition). No violation of Article 8 (1st applicant) Violation of Article 34 Just satisfaction: question reserved for decision at a later date   Konashevskaya and Others v. Russia (no. 3009/07) The applicants, Nina Konashevskaya, Margarita Belikova, Oktyabrina Zharkova and Lyubov Gorokhova, are Russian nationals who were born in 1919, 1930, 1939 and 1941 respectively and live in Moscow. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against them for aggravated fraud. (1st, 2nd and 3rd applicants) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (4th applicant) No violation of Article 6 § 1 Just satisfaction: to first applicant, 6,000 euros (EUR), and to second and third applicants, EUR 2,400, each (non-pecuniary damage)     Length-of-proceedings case   Lelik v. Russia (no. 20441/02) In this 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. Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)   ***   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: [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone : + 33 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.