003-3932575-4548659

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 191 (2012)   03.05.2012   Judgments concerning Azerbaijan, Germany, Greece, Poland,   Russia, Slovakia, Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14   judgments, of which 9 (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final. The others are   Chamber judgments1 and are not final.   Repetitive cases2 and length-of-proceedings cases, 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 (*).   Nitsov v. Russia (no. 35389/04)   The applicant, Valentin Nitsov, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in   Goryunok, the Kirov Region (Russia). The case concerned his allegation that he had been   tortured by police officers for several hours in August 2003 when being held in custody   on suspicion of the attempted murder of one of their colleagues, despite the fact that he   had already voluntarily confessed to the offence. He was subsequently convicted and   sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, later reduced to eight years. Relying in particular   on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that he had   been ill-treated by the police out of revenge for his shooting their colleague and that the   subsequent investigation into his allegation had been inadequate.   Violation of Article 3 (beatings inflicted on the applicant by the police after his arrest)   Violation of Article 3 (effective investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 350 (costs and   expenses)   Salikhov v. Russia (no. 23880/05)   The applicant, Valery Salikhov, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lived in   Novosibirsk before being arrested in June 2004 on suspicion of rape. The case concerned   his complaint that, while being held for questioning on that offence, police officers had   beaten him with truncheons and, pinning him down, forcibly removed his underwear and   cut his fingernails in order to obtain evidence of the rape. He was then paraded naked   from the waist down around the police station. He also claimed that officials   subsequently had attempted to take a blood sample from him by force. He complained of   further ill-treatment in October 2004 when taken to a hearing concerning the extension   of his detention, alleging that he had been beaten beforehand and presented to the   judge bloody, barefoot, wet and dirty. He also complained that the investigations into   both these allegations of ill-treatment had been ineffective. He relied on Article 3   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month   period following a judgment’s 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 five 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 that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,   judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   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   In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the   Convention.   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on this article, he also   complained about the conditions of his detention on remand, which he alleged were   appalling. Notably, inmates had to use a bucket to go to the toilet and were only given   food once per day on weekdays. Lastly, he complained that the criminal proceedings   against him had been unfair as he had not been able to examine in open court the key   witnesses against him, in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance   and examination of witnesses).   Violation of Article 3 (circumstances in which the forensic evidence was taken)   Violation of Article 3 (detention conditions)   Violation of Article 3 (circumstances surrounding the applicant’s transport to the   court-house)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and   expenses)   Yevgeniy Kuzmin v. Russia (no. 6479/05)   The applicant, Yevgeniy Kuzmin, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in   Mariinsk, Kemerovo Region (Russia). A police officer, he was arrested in September   on suspicion of aggravated assault and of causing death when extracting a   confession from a suspect, following which he was detained awaiting trial. His pre-trial   detention was continuously extended thereafter until his conviction and sentencing in   November 2004 to five-and-a-half years in prison. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3   (right to liberty and security), Mr Kuzmin complained that the domestic authorities had   not given sufficient reasons for his continued pre-trial detention.   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (non-pecuniary damage). The applicant did not submit   any claim for costs and expenses.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Chorobik v. Poland (no. 45213/07)   This case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he could not bring his case to the   Supreme Administrative Court because it had rejected his cassation appeal as out of   time. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court).   No violation of Article 6 § 1   The applicants in the following three cases all complained about the non-enforcement or   delayed enforcement of judgments in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to   fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Bakhshiyev and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 51920/09) - delayed enforcement   Gasimova and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 7867/09) - delayed enforcement   Bobic v. Bosnia (no. 26529/10) - non-enforcement   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Taşçı and Demir v. Turkey (no. 23623/10)*   The applicants, Agit Taşçı and Rıdvan Demir, are Turkish nationals who were born in   and 1993 respectively. Minors at the time of the events in question – a Molotov-   cocktail attack on police housing -, they complained about the length of their pre-trial   detention and the lack of a remedy enabling them to contest that measure. They are   currently still being held in pre-trial detention. They relied in particular on Article 5 §§ 3   and 4 (right to liberty and security).   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a   court)   Length-of-proceedings cases   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.   Cangelaris v. Greece (no. 28073/09) *   Violation of Article 6 § 1   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 criminal   proceedings brought against them.   Seta v. Greece and Germany (no. 30287/09)   Zelidis v. Greece (no. 59793/08)   Sagropoulos v. Greece (no. 61894/08)   Ioannis Karagiannis v. Greece (no. 66609/09)   Masár v. Slovakia (no. 66882/09)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in all cases   Violation of Article 13 – in the cases of Zelidis v. Greece, Sagropoulos v. Greece and   Ioannis Karagiannis v. Greece   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   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   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)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   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