003-4445116-5349178

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 235 (2013)   25.07.2013   Judgments concerning Belgium, the Czech Republic, Sweden,   and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six   judgments, of which one (in italics) is a Committee judgment and is final. The others are   Chamber judgments1 and are not final.   One repetitive case2, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of   the press release. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   The Court has also delivered today judgments in the cases of Rivière v. France (application no.   46460/10), Sfez v. France (no. 53737/09), and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos.   11082/06 and 13772/05), for which separate press releases have been issued.   Castellino v. Belgium (application no. 504/08)*   The applicant, Domenico Castellino, is an Italian national who was born in 1956. The   case concerned his complaint about the Belgian courts’ lack of reasoning for his sentence   of 20 years’ imprisonment in 2004 for the murder of a government minister and the   attempted murder of the latter’s wife. As he had not been notified of the indictment, the   first conviction was found unsafe. After being committed to stand trial before the Belgian   courts, he was given the same sentence in a judgment of March 2007, and his appeal on   points of law was dismissed in June of that year. Relying mainly on Article 6 § 1 (right to   a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Castellino complained of   the unfairness of the proceedings and claimed that his conviction had been based on an   unreasoned guilty verdict.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 - in respect of the unreasoned guilty verdict   Just satisfaction: EUR 2,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,312.50 (costs and   expenses)   Kummer v. the Czech Republic (no. 32133/11)   The applicant, Vladimír Kummer, is a Czech national who was born in 1956 and   lives in Aš (Czech Republic). The case concerned Mr Kummer’s allegation that he had   been ill-treated in police custody following his arrest for not having his identity papers on   him when he was on his way back home from a bar. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged in particular that he had been shackled to   an iron ring inside the police cell and stretched and that the ensuing investigation into   his allegations had been inadequate.   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.   Two violations of Article 3 – degrading treatment and ineffective investigation into   the allegations of ill-treatment in police custody   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just   satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision and reserved it; it further   awarded the applicant EUR 189 (costs and expenses).   Rousk v. Sweden (no. 27183/04)   The applicant, Jim Rousk, is a Swedish national who was born in 1950. He died in June   and his wife and sole heir, Julia Rousk, decided to pursue the application. She lives   in Hässelby (Sweden). The case concerned Mr Rouk’s complaints that his rights under   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), as well as under Article 8 (right to   respect for private and family life and home), had been breached by the national   authorities when, to collect an enforceable tax debt, they had sold his property/home   and then evicted him and his wife, without taking into account on-going proceedings   relating to, among other things, an appeal against the writ of execution and a request   for stay on sale of the property. He considered that the measures had been completely   disproportionate since he had been granted extra time to pay most of his tax debt on the   same day that his property had been sold by public auction, and his enforceable tax debt   thereafter had only amounted to approximately EUR 800.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 65,000 (pecuniary damage), EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary   damage) and EUR 8,300 (costs and expenses)   Just satisfaction   Agrokompleks v. Ukraine (no. 23465/03)   The applicant, Agrokompleks JSC, is a private company based in Ukraine which dealt, at   the time of the events, with Russian companies in barter trade operations, such as   exchanging Ukrainian raw foodstuffs for Russian crude oil and further sale of finished oil   products. The case concerned the 1996-2004 insolvency proceedings initiated by the   applicant company against the biggest oil refinery in Ukraine, LysychanskNaftoOrgSyntez   (“LyNOS”), in an attempt to recover outstanding debts. In its principal judgment of   October 2011 the Court found three violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial   within a reasonable time). Namely, the Court held that the domestic courts dealing with   the case could not be regarded as independent or impartial given the blatant   interferences of the highest State authorities in the proceedings. It also held that the   principle of legal certainty had been violated by the quashing of the final judicial decision   determining the amount of the debt owed by LyNOS to the applicant company.   Furthermore, the length of the proceedings was found to have been excessive. Lastly,   the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) as the   proceedings in question had had a direct impact on the property interests of the   applicant company. In the judgment of 6 October 2011 the Court reserved the question   of just satisfaction in whole. Today’s judgment concerned the question of just   satisfaction (Article 41).   Just satisfaction: EUR 27,000,000 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 30,000 (costs and   expenses)   Kobernik v. Ukraine (no. 45947/06)   The applicant, Aleksey Kobernik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1971. He was   arrested in May 1999 on suspicion of, among other offences, membership of an armed   gang, murders and extortion, which concluded in his conviction by the Supreme Court in   April 2007. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he   complained in particular about the conditions of his detention in Lugansk prison where he   had been transferred from June to July 2007 – on account of severe overcrowding and   poor sanitary facilities. Further relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and   Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complained that the   length of both his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him had been   excessive.   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – in respect of the applicant’s conditions   of detention in Lugansk prison   Violation of Article 5 § 3 – in respect of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial   detention   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in respect of the length of the criminal proceedings against   the applicant   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Repetitive case   The following case raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Khvorostyanoy and Others v. Ukraine (no. 54552/09 and 249 other applications)   The applicants in this case complained of the lengthy non-enforcement of domestic   decisions in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a   reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1, violation of Article 13, and violation of Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1 in respect of 234 applications (the 16 remaining applications have been   declared inadmissible)   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 here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   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