CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 juin 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   478 26.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Czech Republic, Russia and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] , with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Two violations of Article 2 Violation of Article 3 (in respect of the applicants) No violation of Article 3 (in respect of the applicants’ relatives) Violation of Article 5 Violation of Article 13 Isigova and Others v. Russia (application no. 6844/02) The applicants are five Russian nationals who live in Sernovodsk, a village in Chechnya (Russia). Tsalipat and Aminat Isigova are the mother and sister of Apti Isigov, born in 1978. Khalisat Umkhanova, Taisiya Musayeva and Arbi Umkhanov are the mother, wife and son of Zelimkhan Umkhanov, born in 1972.   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov disappeared on 2 July 2001 after being unlawfully detained by Russian servicemen during a mopping up operation in their village and that the Russian authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They relied on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing) 13 (right to an effective remedy), 34 (right of individual petition) and 38   §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found it established that the two men had been detained by servicemen during a security operation. It further noted that there had been no reliable news of the applicants’ relatives since July 2001 and that the Russian Government had not submitted any explanation as to what had happened to them after their detention. In the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person was detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of their detention, that could be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov or of any news of them for several years supported that assumption. They both therefore had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by State servicemen. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov. It also held unanimously that there had been a further violation of Article 2 concerning the Russian authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives had disappeared.   The Court also considered that the applicants had suffered, and continued to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their relatives and their inability to find out what had happened to them. The manner in which their complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3. The Court also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 in respect of Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov, in the absence of any reliable information about their alleged ill-treatment or about the manner in which they had died.   The Court further found that the applicants’ relatives had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, which constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in that article.   It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2. The Court further held that no separate issues arose under Article   13 in respect of the alleged violations of Articles   3 and   5 and under Article   34.   It finally held that there had been no need to examine the applicants’ complaint under Article   6 and that there had been no failure to comply with Article 38 § 1 (a).   The Court awarded 5,000   euros   (EUR) to Tsalipat Isigova in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   35,000, jointly, to Tsalipat and Aminat Isigova for non-pecuniary damage. Khalisat Umkhanova, Taisiya Musayeva and Arbi Umkhanov were awarded EUR   15,000, jointly, in respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR   40,000, jointly, for non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were also awarded EUR   17,737 in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Seleznev v. Russia (no. 15591/03) The applicant, Aleksandr Nikolayevich Seleznev, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Kingisepp ( Russia).   In March 2001 Mr Seleznev was arrested on suspicion of extortion. He was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The case concerned his complaints about the conditions of his detention in the Kingisepp police department and pre-trial detention facility no.   IZ-47/1, of his transportation to and from the courthouse and of his confinement in the courtroom. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6 §   3   (b) (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.   The Court found that the fact that Mr Seleznev had had to live, sleep and use the toilet in overcrowded cells (no more than 2 square metres of personal space per detainee in the Kingisepp police department, and 1 square metre in detention facility IZ-47/1) for almost two years had to have caused him distress or hardship which had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and to have aroused in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention. Mr Seleznev was awarded EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Serov v. Russia (no. 75894/01) The applicant, Evgeniy Georgevich Serov, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Saratov (Russia).   The case concerned Mr Serov’s complaint that a judgment in his favour was not enforced in good time and that, in that judgment, the courts had not examined his claim to have certain sums included on his employment certificate. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the delay in enforcement of the judgment in question, and a further violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the courts’ failure to examine the applicant’s claim concerning his employment certificate. Mr   Serov was awarded EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   55 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) Shulepov v. Russia (no. 15435/03) The applicant, Arkadiy Anatolievich Shulepov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and is currently serving a sentence in a correctional facility in Nizhniy Tagil (Russia) for murder and theft.   The case concerned Mr Shulepov’s complaint that, in the appeal proceedings concerning his case, in which he participated through videoconference, he was not provided with a legal-aid lawyer. He relied on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (c), and awarded Mr   Shulepov EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Vashchenko v. Ukraine (no. 26864/03) The applicant, Viktor Alekseyevich Vashchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Melitopil (Ukraine). He is a retired military officer.   In October 1995 Mr   Vashchenko brought civil proceedings for compensation with regard to two apartments he was granted via a social housing scheme. His claims were ultimately rejected in September 2004. Following an incident at the Melitopil court building, Mr   Vashchenko was charged in July 2001 with hooliganism. By September 2007 the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. The case concerned Mr Vashchenko’s complaint about the excessive length of those civil and criminal proceedings. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the excessive length of the civil proceedings, and a further violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   13 concerning the lack of effective remedies concerning the length of civil proceedings. Mr   Vashchenko was awarded EUR   2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Rechtová v. the Czech Republic (application no. 27088/05) The court found the above violation of the applicant’s right to access to a court because of the particularly strict interpretation by the Czech Constitutional Court of the conditions of admissibility of a constitutional appeal.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dorozhko v. Russia (no. 5761/03) Krasev v. Russia (no. 730/04) Martynova v. Russia (no. 57807/00) Petukhov v. Russia (no. 40322/02) Tolstov v. Russia (no. 40078/03) The Court found the above violations in these five cases concerning the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all.     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.