003-3294684-3678323

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 734   07.10.2010   Chamber judgments1 concerning Bulgaria, Greece, Russia   and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight   Chamber judgments.   One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at   the end of the press release. The judgments available only in French are indicated with   an asterisk (*).   Georgi Atanasov v. Bulgaria (application no. 5359/04)*   The applicant, Georgi Atanasov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1965 and lives   in Sofia. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13   (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights,   complaining that in 1997 his vehicle had been seized as evidence in criminal proceedings   and had not been returned to him until 2008 after many requests that had been   unsuccessful.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant for non-pecuniary damage;   euros (EUR) (costs and expenses)   Pankov v. Bulgaria (no. 12773/03)   The applicant, Ivaylo Pankov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1980 and lives in   Pleven (Bulgaria). A conscript, Mr Pankov alleged that he had been shot in the abdomen   by another serviceman during shooting practice and that the authorities had failed to   take the necessary precautions to prevent such an incident from occurring. He also   complained about the inadequacy of the ensuing investigation, which had concluded that   he had in fact shot himself at close range by accident. Mr Pankov relied on Articles 2   (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   No violation of Article 2   No violation of Article 13   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.     Just satisfaction   Antonopoulou and Others v. Greece (no. 49000/06)*   The applicants, Vagia Antonopoulou, Dimitrios Chrysafis, Emmanouil Mantousis and   Nikiforos Mantousis, are Greek nationals. They own land along the main highway   between Thessaloniki and Nea Moudania (Greece). In a judgment of 16 April 2009 the   Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It took the   view that the rejection of a ground of appeal on points of law, of which the applicants   had complained, constituted an over-formalistic approach to the admissibility conditions   for the appeal and that, consequently, the restriction on the applicants’ right of access to   a court had not been proportionate to the aim of guaranteeing legal certainty or due   process. In addition, the Court held that in refusing to award the applicants   compensation for the non-expropriated parts of their land that had been devalued as a   result of the widening of the highway, the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair   balance between the protection of individual rights and the demands of the general   interest. It reserved its decision on the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction). In its   judgment today, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 145,000, jointly for pecuniary   damage.   Skachkov v. Russia (no. 25432/05)   The applicant, Igor Skachkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in   Lyubertsy (Russia). The case concerned his complaint about the appalling conditions of   his detention – in particular overcrowding – for three years in a remand prison pending   criminal proceedings against him for the kidnapping of the director general of a bank. He   was ultimately convicted of that charge as well as robbery and sentenced to nine years’   imprisonment. He relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading   treatment).   Violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Bogatova v. Ukraine (no. 5231/04)   The applicant, Lyudmila Bogatova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1944 and   lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk (Ukraine). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), she   complained that, in a case she had brought concerning pension arrears, the domestic   courts had failed to consider her argument that she had been entitled under the   Constitution to a pension equal to the minimum living standard.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,200 (non-pecuniary damage), EUR 9 (postal expenses)   Pokhalchuk v. Ukraine (no. 7193/02)*   The applicant, Eduard Pavlovich Pokhalchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in   and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing   within a reasonable time) he complained about the length of two sets of proceedings   concerning a dispute between neighbours: civil proceedings brought by him and criminal   proceedings against him. Under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) in   particular, he complained about a decision taken in December 2000 at the beginning of   the criminal proceedings, but still in force today, to prohibit him from leaving the place   where he lives.   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4   Just satisfaction: No claim made by the applicant   Znaykin v. Ukraine (no. 37538/05)   The applicant, Grigoriy Znaykin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and lived   in Staryy Krym (Ukraine) before his imprisonment. A former police officer found guilty of   abuse of office and sentenced to five and a half years’ imprisonment in January 2006,   Mr Znaykin complained in particular about the conditions as well as the unlawfulness of   his detention. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security).   Violation of Article 3   Two violations of Article 5 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following 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.   Utyuzhnikova v. Russia (no. 25957/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 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.   3