003-4798154-5844828

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 174 (2014)   19.06.2014   Judgments concerning Croatia, Greece, Portugal, Russia, and Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 judgments, of   which nine (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 in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Shekhov v. Russia (application no. 12440/04)   The applicant, Nikolay Shekhov, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and is currently serving a   25-year and five month prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Chelyabinsk region (Russia)   for double murder and attempted murder. The case concerned Mr Shekhov’s complaint about the   unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him in which he was convicted.   Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of own   choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant notably complained that he   had not been provided with the assistance of a lawyer at the appeal hearing in his case in January   and had therefore not been able to defend himself. He also alleged under in particular   Article 34 (right of individual petition) that the staff at his detention facility had opened his   correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights, withholding the enclosures, had refused   to dispatch some of his letters with the European Court and had threatened him concerning the   present application.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) – on account of the absence of legal   assistance in the appeal proceedings   Violation of Article 34   Just satisfaction: 4,000 euro (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Uniya OOO and Belcourt Trading Company v. Russia (nos. 4437/03 and   13290/03)   The case concerned the Russian authorities’ seizure and destruction of two consignments of alcohol,   comprising over one million bottles of vodka.   The applicant companies are Uniya OOO, a limited liability company registered in Russia and   Belcourt Trading Company, a company now registered in Belize. The company Uniya apparently   went into liquidation during the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.   Between 1997 and 1998 Uniya imported two consignments of alcohol under a contract with Belcourt   to be sold in the Kaliningrad Region. In April 1998 criminal proceedings were brought against the   senior management of Uniya on suspicion of unlawful trafficking of alcohol. In particular, Uniya was   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.   suspected of importing the alcohol without an appropriate licence. Within those proceedings the   investigator ordered the seizure of the alcohol. Following two rounds of proceedings the director of   Uniya was partly acquitted; in September 2005 the proceedings against him were dropped due to   the expiry of the statutory time-limit. In the meantime, several expert examinations of the alcohol   had been carried out, some of which concluded that the alcohol was not to State standards and was   potentially harmful for customers. On that basis, the first consignment of alcohol seized was,   according to official records, destroyed between September and October 1999. The second   consignment was sent to a private firm in December 2002 and was allegedly transformed into   windscreen wiper fluid.   For a number of years, the applicant companies sought a review of the measures taken in respect of   the alcohol (its seizure and subsequent destruction) or damages, without success. Finally, the   unlawfulness of the destruction of the first consignment was recognised at national level, in   decisions of 2005, 2010 and 2011; Belcourt was awarded 74,418,700 Russian roubles compensation   and Uniya RUB 52,665,032. As concerned the second consignment, the Russian authorities and   courts found that, even though the second consignment had been destroyed unlawfully, the   applicant companies had failed to prove that the alcohol actually belonged to them and therefore   refused to award compensation.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair   hearing), the applicant companies complained in particular about the seizure and destruction of   their two consignments of alcohol, without effective judicial review. As concerned the first   consignment, the applicant companies further claimed that: firstly, even though the compensation   awarded to Belcourt had been paid, it had not covered all their losses or compensated them for non-   pecuniary damage; and, secondly, that the award made in favour of Uniya had been insufficient and,   in any case, could not be received because of the company’s liquidation.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in respect of Belcourt Trading Company, on account of the   destruction of the second consignment of alcohol   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – procedural barriers deprived the applicant companies of an effective   “right to court”   Just satisfaction: 3,050,000 US dollars (USD) to Belcourt Trading Company (pecuniary damage), and   USD 27,400 to Uniya OOO and USD 23,200 to Belcourt Trading Company (costs and expenses).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Tijardović v. Croatia (no. 38906/13)   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the national courts’ judgments ordering her   eviction from her flat. She relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the   home).   Violation of Article 8   Draghici v. Portugal (no. 43620/10)*   The applicant in this case, relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property),   complained of the failure to return his property, which had been seized during a search, although   the Lisbon Court of First Instance had ordered that it be returned at the close of the criminal   proceedings in question.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Gurgach v. Russia (no. 10122/04)   The applicant in this case complained about the non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour   concerning the recalculation of his pension. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Palacheva v. Russia (no. 39814/04)   The applicant in this case complained in particular about the non-enforcement of a judgment in her   favour ordering the authorities to reinstate her to her post as chief accountant for the local town   council and to pay her salary arrears as well as the excessive length of the related proceedings. She   relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an   effective remedy   Kastelic v. Slovenia (no. 25326/11)   Petek v. Slovenia (no. 1543/12)   Both cases concerned the applicants’ complaints about the unfairness of proceedings before the   local courts in which they had been fined for traffic offences. The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1   (right to a fair trial).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in both cases   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial   within a reasonable time), about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings.   Dipla and Potoupni v. Greece (nos. 44795/11 and 19978/12)*   Skafidas and 15 other applications v. Greece (nos. 63548/10, 63830/10, 644/11, 2057/11, 3902/11,   4177/11, 4215/11, 6780/11, 6789/11, 12047/11, 45808/11, 50702/11, 53207/11, 58701/11,   66592/11, and 75384/12)*   Ziouta v. Greece (no. 32247/10)*   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in the three cases   Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) – in the three cases   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)   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