EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
69
29.1.2009
Press release issued by the Registrar
Chamber judgments concerning Estonia and Russia
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which are final[1].
Repetitive cases[2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.
Two violations of Article 3 (conditions of detention)
Andreyevskiy v. Russia (application no. 1750/03)
Three violations of Article 3 (torture, investigation and conditions of detention)
Antropov v. Russia (no. 22107/03)
Violation of Article 3 (conditions of detention)
Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia (no. 6954/02)
The applicants are four Russian nationals who live in Russia. Vasiliy Andreyevskiy was born in 1982 and is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional facility in the Saratov Region. Dimitriy Antropov was born in 1971 and lives in Ussuriysk. Aleksey Maltabar and Anton Maltabar were born in 1969 and live in Tver.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, all four applicants complained in particular of the conditions of their detention on charges of murder in the first two cases and of fraud in the third case.
The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that, in the case of Andreyevskiy, there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 21 to 23 May 2002 at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station in Moscow, where he had been held in a cell not intended for overnight stay, without food or drink or the opportunity to rest.
In the cases of Andreyevskiy and Maltabar and Maltabar, the Court found further violations of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicants’ detention, respectively in remand centre IZ-77/1 in Moscow and in pre-trial detention centre IZ-69/1 in Tver. The Court noted in particular that the applicants had been obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with many other inmates, for two years and nine months in the case of Mr Andreyevskiy, and for over seven months in the case of the Maltabar brothers, which had to have caused them hardship and aroused in them fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them. The Court finally held that there had been no violation of that Article on account of the conditions of the Maltabar brothers’ transportation to and from the courthouse pending the criminal proceedings against them.
In the case of Antropov, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the extreme pain and suffering, which it considered had attained the level of torture, that had been inflicted on the applicant to extract a confession from him. The Court found a further violation of that Article on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into Mr Antropov’s complaints about his ill-treatment. Lastly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of Mr Antropov’s detention from 16 February 2001 to 5 March 2003 in facility no. IZ-25/5 in Ussuriysk, where he had been detained for more than two years in a severely overcrowded cell in unsanitary conditions, notably on account of it having been infested with insects and rodents.
The Court awarded 10,500 euros (EUR) to Mr Andreyevskiy, EUR 22,000 to Mr Antropov and EUR 3,000, each, to Aleksey Maltabar and Anton Maltabar in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)
Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Chervonenko v. Russia (no. 54882/00)
Kiselev v. Russia (no. 75469/01)
The applicants are two Russian nationals: Filipp Chervonenko who was born in 1958 and lives in Moscow, and Bogdan Kiselev who was born in 1973 and lives in Vyatskiye Polyany (Russia).
In September 1997 Mr Chervonenko was found guilty of murder committed in self-defence. In May 2000 Mr Kiselev was found guilty of aggravated rape and violent sexual assault. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), both applicants complained that, following supervisory review proceedings (known as “nadzor”) in which there had been a retrial of their cases, they had been tried and punished again for those same criminal offences, with detrimental consequences, notably an aggravation of the charges and/or an increase in their prison term. They also complained that the criminal proceedings against them as a whole had been unfair.
The Court held, unanimously, in the case of Chervonenko, and by six votes to one, in the case of Kiselev, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as the criminal proceedings against the applicants as a whole had been unfair. It further held that no separate issues arose under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. Each applicant was awarded EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)
No violation of Article 6 § 1
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Lenskaya v. Russia (no. 28730/03)
In this case the applicant complained of the quashing, by way of supervisory review, of a final judgment given in her favour. The Court found that the supervisory review procedure had not been unreasonable or arbitrary, as it had quashed judgments which had been flawed and had balanced well the different competing interests. There had therefore been no violation of Article 6 § 1 or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Violation of Article 6 § 3 (d)
Polyakov v. Russia (no. 77018/01)
The applicant, Valentin Polyakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and is serving a prison sentence in the Tver Region (Russia).
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Polyakov complained that he had been beaten by the police when arrested in October 1999 on suspicion of drug trafficking. He also complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) that the domestic courts had arbitrarily rejected his requests to examine witnesses in his favour in the criminal proceedings against him.
The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) on account of the domestic courts’ refusal, without reasons, to examine witnesses in Mr Polyakov’s favour. The Court considered that, as the domestic courts had convicted the applicant primarily on the basis of an assumption of his having been in a particular place at a particular time, Mr Polyakov should have been given the opportunity to effectively challenge that assumption. The Court awarded Mr Polyakov EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Repetitive cases
The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Kotsar v. Russia (no. 25971/03)
Levishchev v. Russia (no. 34672/03)
The Court found the above violations in these two cases concerning the State’s failure to enforce final judgments in the applicants’ favour in good time or at all.
Length-of-proceedings case
In the following case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. He also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
Violation of Article 13 (effective remedy)
Missenjov v. Estonia (no. 43276/06)
***
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
Stefano Piedimonte (téléphone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)
Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70)
Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)
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.