003-5124053-6321547

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 230 (2015)   02.07.2015   Judgments and decisions of 2 July 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing one judgment1 and 22 decisions2:   one Chamber judgment and one decision on the admissibility are summarised below;   the remaining 21 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment and decision below are available only in English.   Tagayeva and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 26562/07, 14755/08,   49339/08, 49380/08, 51313/08, 21294/11, and 37096/11)   The case originates in seven applications, brought by 447 Russian nationals.   It concerns the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, North Ossetia (Russia), in September 2004, and   the ensuing hostage-taking, siege and storming of the school, which resulted in the deaths of over   civilians, including over 180 children, and injuries to over 750 persons. Some of the applicants   were taken hostage and/or injured; others are family members of those taken hostage, killed or   injured.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants maintain, in particular: that the State has failed in its   obligation to protect the victims from the known risk to their lives; that there was no effective   investigation into the events; and that many aspects of the planning and control of the negotiations   and rescue operation were deficient. Some applicants maintain that the deaths were the result of a   disproportionate use of force by the authorities. Some applicants further allege violations of   Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect   for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The seven applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights between June 2007   and May 2011. The case was communicated to the Russian Government for observations on 10 April   2012. A Chamber hearing was heard on the case in Strasbourg on 14 October 2014.   In its decision made public today, the Court:   - struck four persons out of its list of applicants;   - declared inadmissible the applications lodged by 51 applicants under Articles 2 and 13 of the   Convention;   - declared admissible, without prejudging the merits, the remaining applicants’ complaints under   Article 2 (substantive and procedural obligations) and Article 13 of the Convention; a judgment on   these admissible complaints will be delivered at a later stage; and   - declared inadmissible certain applicants’ complaints under Articles 3, 6, 8, and 10 of the   Convention.   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.   Eftimov v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ (no. 59974/08)   The applicant, Epaminonda Eftimov, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1950 and lives in   Strumica (‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’).   A doctor, Mr Eftimov complains about criminal proceedings brought against him for aggravated   medical malpractice.   In September 1997 an investigation against Mr Eftimov was opened into his treatment of a child   who, having been cared for at his hospital for a broken and injured arm, subsequently had to have   his right hand amputated on account of a serious bacterial infection. Ultimately, the Supreme Court,   deciding at a session held in March 2008 in the presence of the public prosecutor, found Mr Eftimov   guilty of intentional aggravated medical malpractice and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment.   This judgment was served on Mr Eftimov’s lawyer in June 2008.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Eftimov alleged that the   criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, as he had not been able to attend the Supreme   Court’s session which had resulted in his conviction and sentencing, and had lasted an excessive   length of time, namely more than ten years at three levels of jurisdiction.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – on account of the excessive length of the proceedings   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – on account of the lack of equality of arms in the proceedings before the   Supreme Court   Just satisfaction: 3,900 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (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.   2