003-3207156-3585683

597 29.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Azerbaijan, Italy and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 17 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Repetitive cases[2], with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Karimov v. Russia (application no. 54219/08) Konontsev v. Russia (no. 19732/04) The applicants are: Abdumutallib Karimov, an Uzbek national who was born in 1964 and lives in Yoshkar-Ola (Republic of Mari-Al, Russia); and, Valeriy Konontsev, a Kyrgyz national who was born in 1966 in Kyrgyzstan, where he is currently said to be living. Mr Karimov arrived in Russia in June 2005; soon after he was arrested and placed in detention pending extradition at the request of the Uzbek authorities. He was released in June 2009 and granted temporary asylum for one year in August 2009. Mr Konontsev was arrested in Russia in July 2003 and placed in detention pending extradition at the request of the Kyrgyz authorities on account of fraud charges. He was extradited to his country of origin in 2004. Both cases concerned the applicants’ allegation that their detention pending extradition had been unlawful, in breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Karimov further alleged that, if extradited to his country of origin, where he is on a wanted list for suspected involvement in, among other things, terrorism and membership of extremist organisations (including Hizb-ut-Tahrir), he would be at real risk of politically-motivated persecution, torture and/or ill-treatment. He further relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. Mr Karimov: Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment) if applicant expelled Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 Just satisfaction: 13,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 9,000 (costs and expenses) Mr Konontsev: Violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Shaposhnikov v. Russia (Nº 8998/05) The applicant, Igor Shaposhnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Ulyanovsk (Russia). Arrested in September 2004 on suspicion of drug trafficking, he alleged that a part of his pre-trial detention in January 2005 had been unlawful as it had been authorised retroactively, in violation of domestic law. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security). Violation of Article 5 § 1 Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36079/06) Galina Kuznetsova v. Russia (no. 3006/03) These cases concerned the applicants’ complaints that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour in good time. They relied in particular 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 Carla Binotti v. Italy (no. 63632/00)* Laura Binotti v. Italy (no. 71603/01)* Ceglia v. Italy (no. 21457/04)* Colacrai v. Italy (No. 1) (no. 63296/00)* De Sciscio v. Italy (no. 176/04)* Fiore v. Italy (no. 63864/00)* La Rosa and Others v. Italy (No. 6) (no. 63240/00)* La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 7) (no. 63241/00)* Lo Bue and Others v. Italy (no. 12912/04)* Maselli v. Italy (no. 63866/00)* Zaffuto and Others v. Italy (no. 12894/04)* In judgments of 15 July 2005, 13 October 2005, 17 November 2005, 20 April 2006, 13 July 2006 and 19 October 2006, the Court considered that the loss of possession of the land at issue amounted to expropriation, in breach of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. It accordingly held that in all 11 cases there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In today’s judgments, the Court awarded (per case) sums ranging from EUR 500 to EUR 286,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 5,000 to EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 8,432.53 to EUR 30,000 for costs and expenses.   Streltsov and 86 other “Novocherkassk military pensioners cases” v. Russia (nos. 8459/06, 17763/06, 18352/06, 18354/06, 18835/06, 18848/06, 18851/06, 18856/06, 18916/06, 18952/06, 19350/06, 19352/06, 19353/06, 20423/06, 20904/06, 20906/06, 20907/06, 21081/06, 21123/06, 21124/06, 21179/06, 21189/06, 24041/06, 24048/06, 24055/06, 24058/06, 24816/06, 25029/06, 25043/06, 25044/06, 25442/06, 25717/06, 25721/06, 25827/06, 25831/06, 25920/06, 25922/06, 25923/06, 26440/06, 26654/06, 26706/06, 26709/06, 26766/06, 26972/06, 26981/06, 26983/06, 27709/06, 27710/06, 27714/06, 27716/06, 27718/06, 27833/06, 27840/06, 28105/06, 28231/06, 28886/06, 28888/06, 30481/06, 30494/06, 31309/06, 31324/06, 31410/06, 31411/06, 31414/06, 31419/06, 31422/06, 31424/06, 31427/06, 31429/06, 31433/06, 31436/06, 31439/06, 32419/06, 32421/06, 34443/06, 40256/06, 41560/06, 42694/06, 42695/06, 42696/06, 42697/06, 42701/06, 5648/07, 6167/07, 6902/07, 7869/07 and 39423/07) This case concerned, in particular, the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicants and the non-enforcement of the judgments which were quashed on supervisory review. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). (All cases) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (delayed enforcement of judgments) (All cases) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (quashing of judgments) (All cases) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (delayed enforcement of judgments) (68 cases) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (quashing of judgments)   ***   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 Articles  43  and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the day the request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.