003-4031475-4704696

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 314 (2012)   26.07.2012   Judgments concerning Bulgaria and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 6   judgments, of which five (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final. The   judgment in the case of Savitskyy v. Ukraine is a Chamber judgment1 and is 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.   Savitskyy v. Ukraine (application no. 38773/05)   The applicant, Bogdan Savitskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1967 and lives   in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that, after he had been to a bar in August   1998, three police officers had beaten him up, causing him double fractures to the spine.   He also complained that there had been no effective investigation into that incident that   he had had no access to the investigation case file and that he could not effectively   participate in the investigation as he had had no access to legal advice. Relying on   Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he also complained that the Ukrainian authorities had   refused to implement a judgment of October 2006 allowing his request for copies of the   procedural decisions taken in the course of the examination of his complaints of ill-   treatment. Finally, relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), he complained that   the authorities had hindered his effective application to the European Court of Human   Rights, as they had refused to give him access to the necessary documents.   Violation of Article 3 (treatment and investigation)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 34   Just satisfaction: EUR 50,994.05 (pecuniary damage), EUR 100,000 (non-pecuniary   damage), EUR 3,050 (costs and expenses)   Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kharuk and Others v. Ukraine (no. 703/05 and 115 other applications)   The applicants, 114 Ukrainian nationals and companies based in Ukraine, complained   about the delayed enforcement of decisions given in their favour. They relied in   particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 to each applicant in the 100 applications which concerned   non-enforcement delays of more than three years and EUR 1,500 to each applicant in   the 15 applications which concerned non-enforcement delays less of than three years   (pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length   of non-criminal proceedings.   Slyadnyeva v. Ukraine (no. 38711/06)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length   of criminal proceedings.   Kechev v. Bulgaria (no. 13364/05)   Petko Yordanov v. Bulgaria (no. 33560/06)   Yakovlev v. Ukraine (no. 18412/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 13 (in the cases of Kechev v. Bulgaria and Petko Yordanov v.   Bulgaria)   The judgments are available only in English.   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   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.   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.   2