003-4903648-5997632

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 300 (2014)   16.10.2014   Judgments concerning Greece, Russia, Slovenia, Sweden, “The former Yugoslav   Republic of Macedonia”, and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 26 judgments, of   which 14 (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 (*).   Adeishvili (Mazmishvili) v. Russia (application no. 43553/10)   The applicant, Shota Petrovich Adeishvili (Shermandin Goderziyevich Mazmishvili), is a stateless   person of Georgian ethnic origin who was born in 1975 and lives in the Ivanovo Region (Russia). The   case concerned his threatened expulsion from Russia and his conditions of detention pending   expulsion.   According to Mr Adeishvili, in 1991, at the age of 15, he moved from Georgia to Russia. He was   convicted twice of criminal offences, in 1999 and 2005. In July 2010, the domestic courts ordered his   expulsion for his unauthorised residence in Russia, which had become illegal after the authorities   terminated his Russian citizenship and invalidated his Russian passport. Mr Adeishvili was arrested   and remanded in custody pending expulsion. In February 2011 his release was ordered, difficulties in   establishing his identity making his expulsion impossible.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, he complained that he had been detained in appalling conditions in a special   detention centre in Ivanovo from 9 July 2010 to 7 February 2011. He alleged in particular that the   centre was overcrowded, with as little as 1.9 square metres’ personal space on certain days. He also   alleged that there had been no toilets or wash basins in his cell at the beginning of his detention. Mr   Adeishvili also complained that, if carried out, his expulsion to Georgia would breach his right to   family life with his wife and two daughters, all Russian nationals, in violation of Article 8 (right to   respect for private and family life).   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   No violation of Article 8 – should the applicant’s expulsion to Georgia be carried out   Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 725 (costs and expenses)   Chernetskiy v. Russia (no. 18339/04)   The applicant, Aleksandr Chernetskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in the   town of Beloozerskiy (Moscow Region, Russia).   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.   The case concerned the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Chernetskiy after his arrest on suspicion of his   being involved in the armed robbery of a shop in Moscow on 20 March 2002. He alleged that, chased   and apprehended by the two victims of the robbery, he had immediately been arrested by the police   and taken to the police station for questioning. He denied having had anything to do with the   robbery and claims that he was then repeatedly beaten by several police officers with a baseball bat   and rubber truncheons in order to make him confess. The police officers also allegedly threatened to   suffocate him with a gas mask and to use other torture instruments. He submitted that he had   ended up signing a confession in order to avoid further harm. The following day Mr Chernetskiy   complained to the prosecuting authorities that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police   and was taken to hospital for treatment. After his release from hospital for further questioning, he   alleges that he was subjected to another beating the next day. It took three years for the official   inquiry into his allegations to be completed, during which time the refusals by the prosecutor’s office   to bring criminal proceedings were repeatedly quashed by the supervising prosecutor. Ultimately, in   August 2006 the courts rejected Mr Chernetskiy’s complaint, finding that his allegations were   unsubstantiated.   In the meantime, Mr Chernetskiy was convicted on 19 April 2004 of committing a robbery with   violence by an organised group and of illegal possession of a firearm, partly on the basis of the   signed confession.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Chernetskiy   complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment whilst in police   custody on 20 and 21 March 2002 and that the investigation into his allegations had been   inadequate.   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (procedure)   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Eduard Shabalin v. Russia (no. 1937/05)   The applicant, Eduard Albinovich Shabalin, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in   Yefremov (Tula Region, Russia).The case concerned the extension of Mr Shabalin’s pre-trial   detention during a hearing held in his and his counsel’s absence.   In November 2002 Mr Shabalin was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of murder. His   remand in custody was subsequently extended by court order on a number of occasions. Notably, on   August 2003 the Yefremoviskiy Town Court extended his detention pending trial for three months   until 28 November 2003. Neither the applicant nor his counsel was present at the hearing.   On 26 May 2004 the Town Court convicted Mr Shabalin of murder and sentenced him to six years’   imprisonment. The appeal court quashed this judgment on 25 August 2004, and, without giving   reasons or setting a specific time-limit, ordered Mr Shabalin’s continued pre-trial detention. Judicial   authorisation of his detention then took place on 25 February 2005 and, following a number of   further appeals, including one to the Russian Supreme Court, the matter was finally determined by   the Town Court on 21 February 2006 at a hearing attended by the applicant and his counsel. On   April 2006 the Tula Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal, but reduced his   sentence to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. Mr Shabalin was released on probation in   2010, having served only part of his sentence.   Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Shabalin complained that his   detention on remand from 25 August 2004 to 25 February 2005 had not been covered by any lawful   detention order. He further complained under Article 5 § 4 (right to take proceedings to challenge   unlawful detention) that the detention order of 21 August 2003 had been issued by the national   courts in his and his counsel’s absence.   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c)   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Kosumova v. Russia (no. 2527/09)   The applicant, Ruman Kosumova, was a Russian national who was born in 1938 and lived in   Kharachoy (Chechen Republic, Russia). The case concerned her allegation that Russian servicemen   had killed her 36-year old daughter, Raisa Kosumova, in mortar shelling in June 2003. The applicant   died in August 2012 and her son, Abdula Kasumov (Kosumov), has continued the application before   the European Court.   In the morning of 7 June 2003 Russian servicemen sent to Kharachoy to investigate whether rebel   fighters were active in the village had one of their vehicles blown up by an explosive device hidden   by the roadside and were subjected to shelling from automatic firearms coming from a nearby   forest. When reinforcements arrived, mortar shelling of the nearby area began and Ms Kosumova’s   daughter, who was travelling by in her truck, was hit and killed instantly. An investigation into the   incident was immediately launched and, having been suspended and resumed on numerous   occasions with periods – sometimes up to two years – of inactivity, is currently still pending. The   most recent development in the investigation was in July 2011, when a head of forensics revealed   significant shortcomings in the preliminary investigative measures and recommended that all the   servicemen involved in the incident be questioned, particularly to clarify a number of witnesses’   allegations that it had been the servicemen themselves who asked unidentified individuals for   mortar fire support and that the shelling had then been stopped at their request.   Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Ruman Kosumova complained about the killing of her   daughter by the Russian military and the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation   into the incident. She notably complained about the use of heavy ordnance in peacetime and with   no precautions taken.   No violation of Article 2 (right to life)   Violation of Article 2 (procedure)   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 4,000 (costs and expenses) to   Abdula Kasumov (Kosumov)   Mostipan v. Russia (no. 12042/09)   The applicant, Yelena Mostipan, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and is currently serving a   prison sentence in Bozoy (Irkutsk Region, Russia). The case concerned Ms Mostipan’s arrest and   alleged ill-treatment when detained on suspicion of abduction, rape and murder.   Ms Mostipan was arrested on 5 April 2007, and was taken to a police station where she was   questioned in the presence of a lawyer. Prior to this questioning, she alleges that, threatened with   being beaten by the police, she wrote a statement admitting to the abduction. She also alleges that   during further questioning on the morning of 6 April 2007 she was beaten, hit on the head and   stomach, and pulled by the legs and threatened with rape, in order to make her confess to the   murder. She further claims that the police officers subjected her to electrocution while gagging her   mouth.   Ms Mostipan lodged a complaint with the prosecuting authorities on 28 June 2007, alleging that she   had been ill-treated by the police, and three rounds of pre-investigative investigations were   conducted. Each time the investigator, finding her allegations unsubstantiated, refused to bring   criminal proceedings against the accused officers, the most recent refusal being in December 2009.   A fully fledged criminal investigation was therefore never carried out.   In the meantime, in October 2009, she was found guilty as charged and sentenced to 16 years’   imprisonment; those charges were later reclassified and her sentence reduced by two years.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms Mostipan complained that   she had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and that the ensuing investigation into her   allegations had not been effective. Also relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), she complained   that the criminal proceedings against her had been unfair, in particular as her conviction of October   had been based, among other things, on self-incriminating statements she had made under   duress.   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (procedure)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   Just satisfaction   Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (no. 5993/08)   The applicant, Sergey Babushkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Livny, Orel   region (Russia). The case concerned the conditions of his detention. On an unspecified date   Mr Babushkin was found guilty of assault on a police officer, theft and illegal possession of firearms,   and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He served his sentence in Livny and was released in September   2013. Mr Babushkin made a number of allegations about poor living conditions in his prison,   including that his dormitory had not been ventilated, that it had been infested with lice, and that the   arrangement of beds had blocked out any natural light. He complained about his living conditions to   the Federal Department of Corrections, and received a response in March 2007 confirming that the   correctional colony where he had been serving a sentence had been overcrowded. Relying on   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective   remedy), Mr Babushkin complained that he had been detained in cramped and appalling conditions,   and that there had been no available remedy for this in the Russian courts.   In its principal judgment of 28 November 2013 the Court found violations of Article 13 and of   Article 3 (in respect of Mr Babushkin’s conditions of detention). Today’s judgment concerned the   question of just satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention).   Just satisfaction: EUR 25,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Suldin v. Russia (no. 20077/04)   The applicant, Vladimir Suldin, is a Russian national who was born in 1961. He is currently serving a   20-year prison sentence in Pechora Prison (Komi Republic, Russia) for theft and aggravated murder.   The case concerned the fairness of Mr Suldin’s trial before the Russian courts and the conditions of   his pre-trial detention.   Mr Suldin, chief security officer of Bashneft, a Russian petrochemical company, was arrested and   remanded in custody on 19 January 2012 on suspicion of participating in the repeated theft of   petroleum products from the company. He was also accused of having killed O., a presumed   accomplice, in order to cover up the criminal activity. He was ultimately found guilty as charged in   September 2003.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Suldin complained that the   conditions of his pre-trial detention at the Ufa IZ-3/1 facility had amounted to inhuman or degrading   treatment, notably on account of overcrowding.   Further relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair hearing and the right to examine or have   examined witnesses), he also complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair   as the Russian authorities had failed to ensure the attendance at his trial of prosecution witnesses   against him, and that he therefore had never had the opportunity to have them examined during the   trial.   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Vorozhba v. Russia (no. 57960/11)*   The applicant, Ms Tatyana Vorozhba, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in   Vladivostok (Primorskiy Region, Russia).   The case concerned the failure to execute a judgment which had decided that a child should live   with her mother.   In 2000 Ms Vorozhba married, and she and her husband had a child in 2004. After the marriage   ended in divorce, the child lived first with her mother, and subsequently with her father.   Ms Vorozhba brought civil proceedings seeking a decision that the child should live with her. The   father brought proceedings so that the child would live with him. In September 2009 the court   granted Ms Vorozhba’s claim and ruled that the child was to live with her mother. However, the   father refused to comply with the judgment. Ms Vorozhba attempted unsuccessfully to have the   judgment enforced.   Relying on Article 8 (right of respect for private and family life), Ms Vorozhba alleged that the   national authorities had failed to execute the judgment in her favour.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Göthlin v. Sweden (no. 8307/11)   The applicant, Sven Olof Göthlin, is a Swedish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Sundborn   (Sweden). The case concerned his complaints about his detention for over a month for refusing to   reveal where he had hidden a mobile sawmill in enforcement proceedings against him.   In September 2009 the enforcement authorities, seeking to recover Mr Göthlin’s tax debts   amounting to approximately 27,300 euros (EUR), issued a writ of execution attaching Mr Göthlin’s   mobile sawmill which was worth an estimated EUR 33,400. The authorities decided to allow him to   retain possession of the sawmill but informed him that he was not entitled to dispose of it or do   anything which would negatively affect its value. Mr Göthlin appealed against this decision to the   District Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court which finally refused leave to appeal on   May 2010. In the meantime, the enforcement authorities had contacted Mr Göthlin in order to   plan the sale of the sawmill. He stated in his reply to that request that he had removed and hidden   the sawmill. He was summoned for questioning, but refused to co-operate with the authorities or to   give any information about the sawmill’s whereabouts. Ultimately, the courts decided that there   were extraordinary reasons to authorise Mr Göthlin’s detention because of the size of the debts, the   value of his hidden property and the fact that he had continually refused to reveal the sawmill’s   location. He was detained on 29 June 2010 and his situation was reviewed every other week until   August 2010 when the courts found that his continued detention would be disproportionate.   Mr Göthlin complained in particular under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) about his   detention from 29 June until 9 August 2010, alleging that the authorities could have used a less   excessive measure against him.   No violation of Article 5 § 1   Gordiyenko v. Ukraine (no. 27620/09)   The applicant, Vyacheslav Gordiyenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1957 and lives in   Kherson (Ukraine). He has poor health with a long history of neurological illness, including epilepsy.   The case concerned three altercations involving Mr Gordiyenko between March 2006 and   September 2010, in each of which he had sustained head injuries.   The first incident occurred on 24 March 2006 when Mr Gordiyenko was punched in the face by   another man at a bus station. Mr Gordiyenko lodged a number of legal challenges in relation to the   incident, claiming in particular that his epileptic attacks had increased as a result. Criminal   proceedings were however finally ruled out by the Ukrainian Supreme Court on 1 December 2008 on   the ground that his allegations were unfounded.   The second incident occurred on 18 April 2008 when Mr Gordiyenko was attacked by a man wielding   a knife and suffered a blow and a cut to the head. The authorities repeatedly refused to bring   criminal proceedings, most recently in December 2008, because the assailant could not be identified   and the injuries sustained were minor.   The third incident occurred on 20 September 2010 when Mr Gordiyenko entered the premises of the   District Court to obtain a copy of a court decision in one of his cases and, on being disruptive   towards staff, was handcuffed and forcibly removed from the premises. On being removed, he fell   and hit his head, losing consciousness. He was then admitted to hospital, where he was recorded as   suffering bruising to his arms, concussion and cerebral haemorrhaging. Mr Gordiyenko complained   of having been ill-treated by the court security guards and police officers, and pre-investigation   enquiries were carried out which ended with five decisions refusing to institute criminal   proceedings. The last such decision was in January 2012, and confirmed an earlier decision not to   bring criminal proceedings due to lack of evidence.   Mr Gordiyenko complained in particular that the court security guards and police officers had used   excessive force against him during the incident on 20 September 2010 and that there had been no   effective investigation of the incident. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading   treatment).   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (procedure)   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Vorobyev v. Ukraine (no. 28242/10)   The applicant, Yuriy Vorobyev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972 and before his arrest   lived in Kerch (Crimea, Ukraine). On 31 January 2009 he was arrested, and on 27 April 2009, found   guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon and armed robbery. He was sentenced to nine years’   imprisonment. The case mainly concerned the conditions of his detention and the inadequacy of his   medical treatment.   Relying in particular on Article 34 (right of individual petition), Mr Vorobyev complained that, after   the termination of the criminal proceedings against him, he had been unable to obtain copies of   documents from his criminal case file, which he had required in the context of his application to the   European Court of Human Rights.   Violation of Article 34   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Zalevskiy v. Ukraine (no. 3466/09)   The applicant, Viktor Zalevskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Vinnytsya   (Ukraine). The case concerned his allegation that he had been ill-treated during his arrest for   domestic violence.   A history of violent disputes between Mr Zalevskiy and his former wife already being known to the   police, officers were called to the couple’s flat once more in February 2006 because he was allegedly   threatening her with a knife. He alleges that the officers and his former wife’s two brothers burst   into the flat, beat him up and broke his right arm when twisting his arms to handcuff him. He also   claims further ill-treatment on the way to and while in the police station.   In February 2007 the prosecuting authorities refused to bring criminal proceedings into   Mr Zalevskiy’s allegations of ill-treatment, finding that his injuries had occurred when he tried to   resist both opening the door to the police and his subsequent handcuffing. They therefore   concluded that the recourse to physical force had been lawful and necessary in the circumstances.   This decision was then upheld in March 2007.   In the meantime, Mr Zalevskiy’s former wife refused to maintain her complaint about the incident   and the criminal case brought against him was ultimately closed for lack of evidence.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Zalevskiy complained that   he had been ill-treated by the police and his former wife’s brothers and that the ensuing   investigation into his allegations had been ineffective.   No violation of Article 3 (treatment)   No violation of Article 3 (procedure)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Belov v. Russia (no. 27623/06)   Gasanov v. Russia (no. 54866/08)   Istratov v. Russia (no. 28505/09)   Makovoz v. Russia (no. 10011/10)   Mysin v. Russia (no. 6521/07)   The applicants in these cases complained of the conditions of their pre-trial detention, and in the   cases of Belov and Mysin also of the conditions of their detention after conviction, in various   detention facilities (remand prisons, police wards, etc.) in Russia. They all relied on Article 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and in the cases of Istratov and Mysin also on   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) – in the cases of Belov, Gasanov, and   Makovoz   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) – in the cases of Istratov and Mysin   Violation of Article 13 – in the cases of Istratov and Mysin   Losevskiy and Others v. Russia (no. 3243/06)   The applicants in this case complained in particular that the length of their detention on remand had   been excessive. They relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Violation of Article 5 § 3 – in respect of Mr Losevskiy (the Court further decided to strike the   application out of the list of cases insofar as it was lodged by the two other applicants)   Vorobyev v. Russia (no. 33302/08)   The applicant in this case complained that his detention on remand on charges of robbery, theft,   forgery, and extortion had been unlawful and excessively long, that the conditions of his detention   had been inhuman and degrading and that there had been no domestic redress available to him   regarding the conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security),   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), and Article 13 (right to an effective   remedy).   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 13   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Reus and Others v. Ukraine (no. 40587/07)   The applicants in this case complained that the investigation of the death of their relative, who had   died after being struck by a car when crossing the street, had been ineffective. They relied on   Article 2 (right to life).   Violation of Article 2 (procedure)   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 civil proceedings.   Asimakopoulos v. Greece (nos. 22395/10 and 16934/11)*   Bubnik v. Slovenia (no. 72072/12)   Pipuš v. Slovenia (no. 24141/06)   Goreski and Others v. ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ (no. 27307/04)   Mihajlov Ristov and Others v. ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ (no. 40127/04)   Šterjov and Others v. ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ (no. 40160/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) – in all six cases   Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) – in the cases of Mihajlov Ristov and Others and   Šterjov and Others   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.   9