003-5024367-6171186

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 067 (2015)   26.02.2015   Judgments and decisions of 26 February 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments1 and 33   decisions2:   five Chamber judgment are summarised below;   two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 33 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc; they do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available in English only.   Khalikov v. Russia (application no. 66373/13)   Mr Sokhib Khalikov is an Uzbek national, he was born in 1983. He is currently detained in Moscow.   His case principally concerned extradition and expulsion proceedings against him in Russia and his   fear that he would be subjected to torture and ill-treatment if he were sent back to Uzbekistan.   Mr Khalikov left Uzbekistan for Russia in 2011 after one of his friends was arrested and his flat was   searched by the police. In 2012 the Uzbek authorities charged Mr Khalikov, in his absence, with   membership of a banned radical Islamic organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and issued an arrest warrant   against him. As a result, Mr Khalikov was arrested by the Russian police in 2013 and a public   prosecutor authorised his detention for one month pending extradition. The Russian authorities   then extended Mr Khalikov’s detention for a further five months and the extradition proceedings are   still pending. On the expiry of Mr Khalikov’s detention order, he was released but immediately   taken to a police station and charged with infringing Russian immigration law. The District Court   ordered his removal from Russia on administrative grounds, and his detention pending his   removal. Whilst in detention Mr Khalikov has also sought refugee status in Russia, a request which   has been rejected.   In the meantime, in October 2013, Mr Khalikov’s removal was suspended on the basis of an interim   measure granted by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, which   indicated to the Russian Government that Mr Khalikov should not be expelled or extradited to   Uzbekistan whilst the Court is considering his case.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the   European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Khalikov notably argued that the Russian authorities had   failed to assess the risk of ill-treatment in the event of his forced return to Uzbekistan. He also   complained under Article 5 § 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) that his continued detention whilst   he awaited removal on administrative grounds, following the expiry of the extradition detention   order, had been unlawful and under Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided   speedily by a court) that he had been unable to obtain a judicial review of his detention.   Violation of Article 3 – in the event of Mr Khalikov’s forced return to Uzbekistan   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (f)   Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) – not to expel and/or extradite Mr Khalikov to   Uzbekistan – still in force until judgment becomes final or until further order.   Just satisfaction: 7,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)   Yevgeniy Bogdanov v. Russia (no. 22405/04)   The applicant, Yevgeniy Bogdanov is a Russian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in   Akhtubinsk, in the Astrakhan Region. His case essentially concerned his complaint about the   appalling conditions of his pre-trial detention.   Mr Bogdanov was arrested on suspicion of rape and remanded in custody in December 2002. His   pre-trial detention was repeatedly extended and his appeals against the extension rejected, despite   his requests to either be released or kept under house arrest to enable him to seek medical   treatment, having contracted hepatitis C in 2002. He remained in pre-trial detention until May 2005,   a period of two years, five months and ten days. His detention ended with his conviction and   sentencing to eight years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Bogdanov complained in   particular about overcrowding and the generally unhygienic and unsanitary conditions he had been   detained in. In addition he complained about the transfer journeys between prisons, in overcrowded   conditions without adequate food and no sanitary arrangements. Relying on Article 13 (right to an   effective remedy), he further argued that he had not had the means to challenge the inhuman and   degrading conditions of his detention as his complaints had been dismissed by the relevant   authorities. Lastly, relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Bogdanov   complained that his pre-trial detention, lacking grounds, had been unlawful, and had continued for   an excessively long time and that the judicial review of his detention had been too slow.   Violation of Article 13   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) – on account of the conditions of   detention   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) – on account of the conditions of   transportation between prisons   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) – concerning Mr Bogdanov’s detention between 20 August and   December 2003   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (costs and expenses)   M.T. v. Sweden (no. 1412/12)   The applicant, M.T., is an ethnic Uyghur and a Kyrgyz national. He was born in 1985 and is currently   in Sweden. His case concerned the availability and access to adequate medical treatment for kidney   failure if he were to be expelled to Kyrgyzstan.   M.T arrived in Sweden in 2009 and applied for asylum and a residence permit. His asylum claim   stemmed from his ties with his business partner, an ethnic Uyghur from China, who had been   arrested on suspicion of supporting the Uyghur disturbances in China. M.T had been arrested by the   Kyrgyz police in the autumn of 2009 and, although released, was twice summoned to appear in   court. At this point he left Kyrgyzstan. M.T suffers from chronic kidney failure and requires regular   dialysis. He claims that he had been refused medical treatment in Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan) following his   arrest and that there are insufficient dialyses machines in Kyrgyzstan to meet the population’s need.   His request for asylum was rejected by the Migration Board and, upon appeal, by the Migration   Court. In November 2011 the Migration Court of Appeal refused him leave to appeal. In particular,   the Migration authorities considered that M.T.’s submissions were not credible and that he had   failed to substantiate that, if removed, he would either be at risk of persecution or of not receiving   adequate treatment within a reasonable time.   In January 2012 M.T.’s removal was suspended on the basis of an interim measure granted by the   European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, which indicated to the Swedish   Government that he should not be expelled whilst the Court is considering his case.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), M.T. argued that adequate   medical care was not available to him in Kyrgyzstan and that he would die within a few weeks in the   event of his forced return there.   No violation of Article 3 – in the event of M.T.’s expulsion to Kyrgyzstan   Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) – not to expel M.T. to Kyrgyzstan – still in force until   judgment becomes final or until further order.   Prilutskiy v. Ukraine (no. 40429/08)   The applicant, Igor Prilutskiy, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Donetsk. His   case concerned the failure of the state to protect his son’s safety on the road and the ineffective   criminal proceedings which had followed his death.   Mr Prilutskiy’s son was killed in a car crash in 2006 whilst he was participating in an organised driving   game in Donetsk. His team’s car crashed, resulting in the death of three passengers. The driver   sustained injuries. The regional police department immediately opened an investigation into the car   crash. In 2007 the police decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the organisers of the   driving game. The investigative authorities found that the driver had lost control of the car because   he was driving too fast, and that this had resulted in the death of the three passengers. Whilst the   authorities agreed that his actions amounted to a crime, the driver had developed a mental disability   following the accident, and in consequence they only recommended that the court impose   compulsory medical measures on the driver. The case was heard in 2011, appealed in 2012 and   further investigations undertaken. The case was still pending in 2013.   Relying principally on Article 2 (right to life), Mr Prilutskiy complained that the State had failed to   take appropriate steps to protect his son’s life during a driving game. He also complained that the   criminal proceedings in connection with the accident had been ineffective.   No violation of Article 2 (positive obligation to protect life)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 960 (costs and expenses)   Zaichenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 45797/09)   The applicant, Vladimir Zaichenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in   Dnipropetrovsk (Ukraine). His case concerned his involuntary psychiatric confinement and the   collection of personal information about him by the police.   Mr Zaichenko was a frequent litigant before the domestic courts in Ukraine and in 2009 he sent   several rude letters to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administrative Court. In response the court   prepared a report arguing that Mr Zaichenko was in contempt of court. The District Court heard the   case and ordered a psychiatric examination of Mr Zaichenko to determine whether he could be held   legally accountable. Mr Zaichenko spent a night at the psychiatric hospital but the hospital claimed it   could not conduct the examination due to a lack of information in the case file. The Court president   instructed the police to gather information about Mr Zaichenko (including any psychiatric treatment   or medication he had received as well as information about his character from his relatives,   neighbours and colleagues) in order to complete the case file for the hospital. Mr Zaichenko was   then taken back to the hospital, but the hospital again stated that the examination could not be   conducted without the provision of extra background information. This time Mr Zaichenko was   detained in the hospital whilst additional information was gathered. A group of experts eventually   produced an inconclusive report recommending a further examination and Mr Zaichenko was   discharged. The Court continued to try and obtain a psychiatric examination of Mr Zaichenko but   without success.   The contempt of court proceedings were eventually dropped in 2010 as too much time had elapsed,   a decision Mr Zaichenko appealed unsuccessfully on the basis that no administrative offence had   been committed in the first place. Mr Zaichenko initiated various proceedings against the psychiatric   hospital, arguing that his hospitalisation and confinement were unlawful and that the hospital had   refused to provide him with a copy of its report. Mr Zaichenko also lodged a complaint against some   judicial officials and the police involved in taking him to the psychiatric hospital. He was notably   awarded €40 compensation for the hospital’s failure to provide him with a copy of the examination   report, his other complaints were rejected.   Relying chiefly on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Zaichenko complained that he had   been taken to and detained in a psychiatric hospital against his will for 25 days. Also relying on   Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained about the collection of personal   information about him by the police.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 120 (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)   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.   4