003-4537573-5477481

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 303 (2013)   17.10.2013   Judgments concerning Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Russia,   and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber   judgments1, none of which are final. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   The Court has also delivered today its judgment in the case of Winterstein and Others v. France (application no. 27013/07),   for which a separate press release has been issued.   Horvatić v. Croatia (application no. 36044/09)   The applicant, Mijo Horvatić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Garešnica   (Croatia). The case concerned Mr Horvatić’s complaint about the unfairness of criminal proceedings   brought against him in 1996 on charges of armed robbery. He was subsequently found guilty on the   basis of fibres – taken from his clothes during his police questioning – as well as strands of his hair   being found on the disguise allegedly used by the bank robber. He was sentenced to five years’   imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complained that the evidence against   him had been tampered with by the police, alleging in particular that the police had rubbed together   the robber’s disguise and his clothes and planted the hair, and that he had had no effective   opportunity to challenge that evidence during the trial.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 euros (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Budrevich v. the Czech Republic (no. 65303/10)   The applicant, Andrei Budrevich, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1979. The case concerned   Mr Budrevich’s removal to Belarus. In 2006 he left Belarus and entered the Czech Republic, where   he applied for asylum, stating that he feared imprisonment in Belarus because he had imported   advertisements in support of an opposition candidate in the presidential elections. His request was   rejected as the authorities considered his allegations contradictory and not credible. Three   subsequent requests for asylum were also rejected. Following his conviction of a number of   offences, a court sentenced him to expulsion from the territory of the Czech Republic in March 2009.   However, the execution of the sentence was stayed in accordance with an interim measure applied   by the European Court of Human Rights (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) in November 2010,   indicating to the Czech Government not to remove Mr Budrevich to Belarus until further notice. In   2011, the Czech authorities granted Mr Budrevich subsidiary protection under the Asylum Act, which   was extended in 2013. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that his removal to Belarus would expose   him to a real risk of ill-treatment and that he had not had an effective remedy in the Czech Republic   against his removal.   Violation Article 13 in conjunction with 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   Interim measure (Rule 39 of Rules of Court) – not to remove the applicant – lifted   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just   satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.   Aslanis v. Greece (no. 36401/10)*   The applicant, Georgios Aslanis, is a Greek national. The case concerned his conditions of detention   at Serres police headquarters. Mr Aslanis was arrested in June 2009 on suspicion of committing   several thefts and was charged with a series of thefts carried out as part of a gang. After a brief   period of release on bail, which he failed to pay, he was again remanded in custody. From December   to March 2010 he was held at Serres police headquarters. Mr Aslanis complained that a lack of   ventilation made the air impossible to breathe owing to the unpleasant smells and cigarette smoke.   He further complained of the dirty state of the toilets, overcrowding and a shortage of beds and   food. He alleged that the conditions of detention had been in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment).   Violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Shyti v. Greece (no. 65911/09)*   The applicant, Petrit Shyti, is an Albanian national who was born in 1983. Following Mr Shyti’s arrest   in February 2009 for cocaine trafficking the public prosecutor at the Thessaloniki Criminal Court   instituted criminal proceedings against him for drug trafficking and possession of forged transport   papers. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention),   Mr Shyti argued, notably, that the examination of his application for release had not complied with   the speediness requirement.   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Keller v. Russia (no. 26824/04)   The applicant, Galina Keller, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow. The   case concerned the death of her son, born in 1977, while detained in police custody in September   on suspicion of having stolen a bicycle. The ensuing investigation concluded that he had   jumped from a window into the courtyard of the police station and that there had been no coercion.   Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Keller complained that the authorities failed to   safeguard the life of her son and that there was no effective investigation into the circumstances of   his death. She also complained, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),   that her son had been ill-treated before his death, as bruises had been found on his body, and that   the investigation had been unable to explain the origins of those injuries.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) – in respect of the authorities’ failure to safeguard the life of the   applicant’s son   No violation of Article 2 (procedure) – as regards the applicant’s allegations that the investigation   into the circumstances of her son’s death had not been effective   Violation of Article 3 (procedure) – in respect of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective   investigation into the origins of the bruises found on the applicant’s son’s body   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) – as regards the bruises found on the applicant’s son’s body   Just satisfaction: EUR 11,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)   Klyukin v. Russia (no. 54996/07)   The applicant, Aleksandr Klyukin, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow.   He was convicted of burglary and sentenced to five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment in a judgment   which became final in May 2007. He alleged that the conditions of his detention in a remand prison   in Moscow between April 2006 and June 2007 and of his detention in two correctional colonies from   June 2007 until his release in November 2009 had been in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment). In particular, he complained of: severely overcrowded cells, a lack   of ventilation and insufficient outdoor exercise in the remand prison; and, insufficient personal   space, scarcity and low quality of the food provided in the correctional colony. He further   maintained that he had not had an effective remedy in respect of his complaints, in breach of   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 3 – on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand   prison from April 2006 to June 2007 and the correctional colony between June 2007 and April 2008   No violation of Article 3 – on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the hospital at   the correctional colony from September to November 2007   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia (no. 33023/07)   The applicant, Sergey Vasilyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is serving a ten-year   prison sentence in Yemva, Komi Republic (Russia), for murder. The case concerned Mr Vasilyev’s   complaint about the appalling conditions of his pre-trial detention, notably in remand prison   no. IZ-44/l, from October 2005 (when he was arrested) to April 2007 (just after his conviction was   upheld on appeal). He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading   treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), notably alleging severe overcrowding and a   lack of effective remedies under domestic law to complain about the conditions of his detention. He   also complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) about the excessive length of his   detention while the criminal proceedings against him had still been pending, and under Article 34   (right of individual petition) about the failure of the correctional colony, where he had served part of   his prison sentence, to dispatch his application form to the European Court of Human Rights.   Violation of Article 3 – on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand   prison from October 2005 to April 2007   Violation of Article 13   Violation of Article 5 § 3   No violation of Article 34   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Vladimir Belyayev v. Russia (no. 9967/06)   The applicant, Vladimir Belyayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and is serving a 21-year   prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk region (Russia) for murder and membership of an organised   criminal gang. He was convicted in November 2003. The case concerned the conditions of   Mr Belyayev’s detention between April and December 2005 whilst serving part of his sentence in   correctional colony IK-4 in the Magadan region. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained that he had been kept in overcrowded cells with   little opportunity for outside exercise.   No violation of Article 3   Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine (no. 42752/08)   The applicants, Nataliya Pozhyvotko and Mariya Pozhyvotko are Ukrainian nationals who live in the   Chernihiv region (Ukraine). They are the widow and mother of Volodymr Pozhyvotko, respectively.   The case concerned the investigation by the Ukrainian authorities into Mr Pozhyvotko’s death on   October 2004 when he was shot dead in a local bar. Over the next seven years, investigators   decided to close an investigation into the incident three times, on the grounds that there was   insufficient evidence to charge the main suspect, or that the suspect had acted in self-defense. Each   time the investigation was closed, it was re-opened by a supervisory authority. Investigations were   still ongoing as of 12 April 2012. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Nataliya and Mariya Pozhyvotko   complained that the Ukrainian authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the   death of their husband and son.   Violation of Article 2 (procedure)   Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) to each applicant   Taran v. Ukraine (no. 31898/06)   The applicant, Ivan Taran, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Sevastopol   (Ukraine). The case concerned a number of complaints brought by Mr Taran about the conditions   and lawfulness of his pre-trial detention following his arrest in June 2005 on suspicion of murder.   The Ukrainian courts found him guilty in November 2010 and sentenced him to seven years’   imprisonment. That decision was, however, subsequently quashed on appeal and in April 2011   Mr Taran was released. On 4 December 2012, the proceedings were still pending. Relying on   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his   transportation between Simferopol detention facility and Sevastopol temporary detention centre   where he was taken on numerous occasions to attend court hearings on his case, alleging that he   had been kept for over 20 hours in a 0.5 sq.m metal cage inside the vehicle without food, water or   being able to sleep. He further alleged overcrowding in Sevastopol temporary detention centre.   Further relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he also complained about: the lawfulness   of his pre-trial detention between August and October 2005 – which he alleged had not been based   on a court decision – as well as of the courts’ extension of his pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 1); the   unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention, which had lasted more than five years and nine   months (Article 5 § 3); the lack of appropriate judicial review of his detention (Article 5 § 4); and, the   absence of an enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 5).   Lastly, he alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him had been   excessive, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) – as regards the period of the applicant’s detention after 29 November   till 29 December 2005   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Violation of Article 5 § 5   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 14,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 900 (costs and expenses)   Zubkova v. Ukraine (no. 36660/08)   The applicant, Nina Zubkova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1937 and lives in the city of   Kharkiv (Ukraine). The case concerns Ms Zubkova’s complaint about the authorities’ inadequate   investigation into the death of her son, Igor Zubkov (born in 1961), on 18 May 2002 when, riding his   bicycle, he collided with a minibus at a crossroads in Kharkiv. She notably complains that the   investigation was discontinued and re-opened on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2006   without instructions by the supervising authorities for further steps, namely questioning of   witnesses, expert examinations and a reconstruction of events, being followed through. During the   proceedings, the investigators continued to conclude that the accident had been caused by her son   and not through any fault of the minibus driver. She relies on Article 2 (right to life).   Violation of Article 2 (procedure)   Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (costs and expenses)   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] | 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.   5