003-5995779-7678771

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 047 (2018)   06.02.2018   Judgments of 6 February 2018   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing nine judgments1:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one   other Chamber judgment in the case of Kristiana Ltd. V. Lithuania (application no. 36184/13);   six Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can   be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarized below are available only in English.   Akimenkov and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 2613/13 and 50041/14)   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that, following a political demonstration, there had   been no good reason for his arrest or pre-trial detention, and that various aspects of his detention   had amounted to degrading treatment.   The applicant, Vladimir Akimenkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Moscow.   On 6 May 2012 he attended a protest against allegedly rigged presidential elections. After a peaceful   march, a meeting began at Bolotnaya Square, where clashes broke out between the demonstrators   and the police. The following month the applicant was arrested and charged with taking part in acts   of mass disorder and committing acts of violence against the police accompanied by violence. He   requested bail but detention was repeatedly extended until December 2013 when he was finally   released under the new Amnesty Act.   The applicant complained in particular under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading   treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, notably about the alleged poor conditions   in the various remand prisons, en route to court and at the court itself, and about a lack of medical   assistance for a serious eye condition. He further complained under Article 5 (right to liberty and   security) that there had been no good reason for his extended pre-trial detention, nor any reason to   suspect that he had committed a criminal offence.   No violation of Article 3 – in respect of the conditions of detention in the remand prisons   No violation of Article 3 – as regards the alleged lack of medical assistance   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) – in respect of the conditions of transfer   to and from court   Violation of Article 3 – on account of the confinement in a glass cabin in hearing room no. 338 at the   Moscow City Court   No violation of Article 3 – on account of the confinement in a glass cabin in hearing room no. 635 at   the Moscow City Court   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Just satisfaction: 10,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   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   Just satisfaction   Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine (no. 21722/11)   The case concerned the question of just satisfaction following a judgment of the European Court of   Human Rights regarding the dismissal of a Supreme Court Judge, Oleksandr Volkov.   In its principal judgment of 9 January 2013 the Court held that there had been four violations of   Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of   the European Convention.   The Court held in particular: that the proceedings leading up to Mr Volkov’s dismissal had not   fulfilled the requirements of an “independent and impartial tribunal”; that the proceedings before   the High Council of Justice, which initiated the inquiries leading up to his dismissal, had been unfair   as there were no time-limits for such proceedings; that the vote in Parliament on his dismissal had   been unlawful; and, that the chamber of the Higher Administrative Court, which reviewed the case,   had not complied with the principle of a “tribunal established by law”.   As to the award of just satisfaction, the Court held that Ukraine was to pay Mr Volkov 6,000 euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 12,000 for costs and expenses.   Today’s judgment concerned the question of just satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention) insofar   as pecuniary damage was concerned.   Just satisfaction: Taking formal note of the agreement between the parties, whereby the Ukrainian   Government undertook to pay Mr Volkov 1,430,212.32 Ukrainian hryvnias (about EUR 40,657) in   respect of pecuniary damage, the Court decided to strike the remainder of the application out of its   list of 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)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   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