003-3196853-3567525

566 15.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Austria, Croatia, Greece, Russia and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 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.     Mladoschovitz v. Austria (application no. 38663/06) The applicants, Nadine Mladoschovitz and Jeanine Mladoschovitz, are Austrian nationals who were born in 1998 and 2002 respectively and live in Linz (Austria). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained about the unfairness of proceedings against their father for the enforcement of maintenance claims. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: 1,500 euros (EUR), jointly (non-pecuniary damage)   Šikić v. Croatia (no. 9143/08) The applicant, Hrvoje Šikić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Vinkovci (Croatia). Mr Šikić complained about the unfairness and excessive length of the proceedings in which he had been dismissed from his post as Chief Constable of Vukovar Police Station. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention. Further relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), he also complained that even though the criminal proceedings brought against him – for not properly reporting a road accident involving a police vehicle – had been dropped, he had nonetheless been dismissed in administrative proceedings on identical grounds. No violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (fairness) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 3,100 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 EUR (costs and expenses)   Medvedev v. Russia (no. 9487/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Medvedev, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), he complained that it had taken the domestic courts too long to review the lawfulness of his detention. Violation of Article 5 § 4 Just satisfaction: EUR 600 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 600 (costs and expenses)   Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia (no. 7772/04) The applicant, Vladimir Krivonosov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Taganrog (Rostov Region, Russia). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained about having been detained in appalling conditions in the pre-trial detention centre and in the Regional Court in Rostov-on-Don, and that he could not challenge that effectively. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Krivonosov complained about having been detained unlawfully and for too long pending trial, and about his detention not having been reviewed by a judge. Mr Krivonosov further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the criminal proceedings against him having lasted for too long. Violation of Article 13 Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) (conditions of detention in facility IZ-61/1 of Rostov‑on-Don from 11 February 2002 to 23 April 2005) No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) (conditions of confinement at Rostov Regional Court) No violation of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Just satisfaction: EUR 22,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 300 (costs and expenses)   Buryaga v. Ukraine (no.27672/03) The applicant, Andrey Buryaga, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Krasnoselka (Odessa Region, Ukraine). Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) he complained about having been detained unlawfully in March 2001, and for too long, pending his trial on suspicion of robbery. Relying further on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Buryaga complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: no claim for damage made by the applicant; EUR 125 (costs and expenses)   Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine (no. 38683/06) The applicant, Aleksandr Smirnov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Yevpatoriya (Ukraine). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about having been ill-treated by the police in March 2002 after his arrest on suspicion of theft, as well as about those complaints not having been investigated effectively by the Ukrainian authorities. Further relying on Article 34 (individual applications), he complained that he had encountered difficulties in collecting copies of documents he needed for his application. No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) Violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) No violation of Article 34 Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 7 (costs and expenses)   Vinokurov v. Ukraine (no. 2937/04) The applicant, Konstantin Vinokurov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Lugansk (Ukraine). Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained about the excessive length of his detention awaiting trial on suspicion of financial fraud and forgery. Violation of Article 5 § 3 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant within time-limit   Yushchenko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 73990/01, 7364/02, 15185/02 and 11117/05) The first three applicants are Vladimir Mikhaylovich Yushchenko, Vladimir Vladimirovich Yushchenko and Pavel Vladimirovich Yushchenko. They are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1934, 1967 and 1976 respectively and live in Yevpatoriya (Ukraine). Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Vladimir Mikhaylovich Yushchenko complained that, even though a final decision had been taken by the courts in civil proceedings against him concerning the misappropriation of a photocopying machine, paper and ink cartridges, a civil claim about the same issues had nonetheless been allowed within the related criminal proceedings against him. He also complained about the excessive length of various civil and criminal proceedings against him. Also relying on Article 6, Pavel Vladimirovich Yushchenko complained about the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud. In particular, he complained that he had not been presumed innocent given that the domestic court had referred to him as an accomplice in the criminal case against Vladimir Mikhaylovich Yushchenko, while he had participated in those proceedings as a witness. (1st applicant) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (1st applicant) No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (fraud proceedings) (1st applicant) Violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) (libel and civil proceedings) (3rd applicant)Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) (3rd applicant) No violation of Article 6 § 2 (fairness) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicants within time-limits     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Nikitina v. Russia (no.47486/07) Salikova v. Russia (no.25270/06) In these cases the applicants complained, in particular, of the non-enforcement by the domestic authorities of final judgments in their favour. In the case of Salikova, the applicant also complained of the excessive length of the civil proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). In the case of Nikitina the applicant also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) – both cases Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) – 2nd case Violation of Article 13 – both cases Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – 1st case     Length-of-proceedings cases   Kotaridis v. Greece (no. 205/08)* Kolomoyets v. Ukraine (no. 11208/03) Palamarchuk v. Ukraine (no. 28585/04) Slanko v. Ukraine (no. 6508/05) In these 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 – all cases   ***   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 Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) 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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.