003-3264770-3656171

690 23.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar     Chamber judgments[1] concerning Austria, Bulgaria, France and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 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.     Fragner v. Austria (application no. 18283/06) The applicant, Arnold Fragner, is an Austrian national and a general medical practitioner. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that the Regional Appeals Commission, which had examined his claim for fees submitted to an insurance board, had not been independent or impartial, and that the proceedings in his case had been excessively long. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: 2,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Bousarra v. France (no. 25672/07)* The applicant, Mr Issam Bousarra, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Taza (Morocco). He arrived in France with his parents at the age of three weeks. He is unmarried and has no family. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, he complained of the decision to deport him to Morocco after he had been sentenced in 2001 to five years’ imprisonment, of which one year had been suspended, for a drugs-related offence, extortion, kidnapping and possession of an illegal weapon. Violation of Article 8 Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 8,000 (costs and expenses)   Aleksander Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia (no. 33929/03) The applicant, Aleksander Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and is currently serving, in the Ryazan Region, a 17-year prison term for murder and theft for which he was convicted in April 2002. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained about the conditions in which he had been kept pending trial, and in particular about overcrowding. Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading conditions) Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Isayev v. Russia (no. 24490/03) The applicant, Andrey Isayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Vladimir (Russia). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been excessively long. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant   Vasilchenko v. Russia (no. 34784/02) The applicant, Petr Vasilchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Rostov-on-Don (Russia). Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he alleged that the courts had taken too long to examine his case in which he sought reinstatement to his job as an army colonel from which he had been removed in 1998, as well as payment of salary and benefits, and compensation for damage resulting from his removal. No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Davletkhanov and other “Chernobyl pensioners” v. Russia (nos. 7182/03, 10115/04, 21752/04 and 22963/04) Konenkova and other “privileged pensioners” v. Russia (nos. 59704/08, 59706/08, 59707/08, 59708/08, 59710/08, 59712/08, 59713/08, 59714/08, 59715/08, 59717/08, 59718/08, 59719/08, 59720/08 and 59721/08) Popova and other “Privileged pensioners” v. Russia (32310/08, 33191/08, 43100/08, 46454/08, 57961/08, 5517/09 and 10564/09) Tyrtova and other “Privileged pensioners” v. Russia (38126/08, 38341/08, 38345/08, 40593/08, 40596/08, 40598/08 and 45101/08) These cases concerned the quashing of final domestic courts judgments in the applicants’ favour. They relied 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     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following 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. (2nd, 3rd and 4th applicants) Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 4570/05) Violation of Article 6 § 1 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1   Antyushina v. Russia (no. 23204/03) 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 [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.