issued by the Registrar of the Court  
no. 734  
07.10.2010  
Chamber judgments1 concerning Bulgaria, Greece, Russia  
and Ukraine  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight  
Chamber judgments.  
One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at  
the end of the press release. The judgments available only in French are indicated with  
an asterisk (*).  
Georgi Atanasov v. Bulgaria (application no. 5359/04)*  
The applicant, Georgi Atanasov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1965 and lives  
in Sofia. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13  
(right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights,  
complaining that in 1997 his vehicle had been seized as evidence in criminal proceedings  
and had not been returned to him until 2008 after many requests that had been  
unsuccessful.  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Just satisfaction: no claim made by the applicant for non-pecuniary damage;  
800 euros (EUR) (costs and expenses)  
Pankov v. Bulgaria (no. 12773/03)  
The applicant, Ivaylo Pankov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1980 and lives in  
Pleven (Bulgaria). A conscript, Mr Pankov alleged that he had been shot in the abdomen  
by another serviceman during shooting practice and that the authorities had failed to  
take the necessary precautions to prevent such an incident from occurring. He also  
complained about the inadequacy of the ensuing investigation, which had concluded that  
he had in fact shot himself at close range by accident. Mr Pankov relied on Articles 2  
(right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.  
No violation of Article 2  
No violation of Article 13  
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.  
 
Just satisfaction  
Antonopoulou and Others v. Greece (no. 49000/06)*  
The applicants, Vagia Antonopoulou, Dimitrios Chrysafis, Emmanouil Mantousis and  
Nikiforos Mantousis, are Greek nationals. They own land along the main highway  
between Thessaloniki and Nea Moudania (Greece). In a judgment of 16 April 2009 the  
Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and  
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It took the  
view that the rejection of a ground of appeal on points of law, of which the applicants  
had complained, constituted an over-formalistic approach to the admissibility conditions  
for the appeal and that, consequently, the restriction on the applicants’ right of access to  
a court had not been proportionate to the aim of guaranteeing legal certainty or due  
process. In addition, the Court held that in refusing to award the applicants  
compensation for the non-expropriated parts of their land that had been devalued as a  
result of the widening of the highway, the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair  
balance between the protection of individual rights and the demands of the general  
interest. It reserved its decision on the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction). In its  
judgment today, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 145,000, jointly for pecuniary  
damage.  
Skachkov v. Russia (no. 25432/05)  
The applicant, Igor Skachkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in  
Lyubertsy (Russia). The case concerned his complaint about the appalling conditions of  
his detention – in particular overcrowding – for three years in a remand prison pending  
criminal proceedings against him for the kidnapping of the director general of a bank. He  
was ultimately convicted of that charge as well as robbery and sentenced to nine years’  
imprisonment. He relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading  
treatment).  
Violation of Article 3  
Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)  
Bogatova v. Ukraine (no. 5231/04)  
The applicant, Lyudmila Bogatova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1944 and  
lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk (Ukraine). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), she  
complained that, in a case she had brought concerning pension arrears, the domestic  
courts had failed to consider her argument that she had been entitled under the  
Constitution to a pension equal to the minimum living standard.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Just satisfaction: EUR 1,200 (non-pecuniary damage), EUR 9 (postal expenses)  
Pokhalchuk v. Ukraine (no. 7193/02)*  
The applicant, Eduard Pavlovich Pokhalchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in  
1943 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing  
within a reasonable time) he complained about the length of two sets of proceedings  
concerning a dispute between neighbours: civil proceedings brought by him and criminal  
proceedings against him. Under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) in  
particular, he complained about a decision taken in December 2000 at the beginning of  
the criminal proceedings, but still in force today, to prohibit him from leaving the place  
where he lives.  
2
Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length)  
Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4  
Just satisfaction: No claim made by the applicant  
Znaykin v. Ukraine (no. 37538/05)  
The applicant, Grigoriy Znaykin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and lived  
in Staryy Krym (Ukraine) before his imprisonment. A former police officer found guilty of  
abuse of office and sentenced to five and a half years’ imprisonment in January 2006,  
Mr Znaykin complained in particular about the conditions as well as the unlawfulness of  
his detention. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and  
Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security).  
Violation of Article 3  
Two violations of Article 5 § 1  
Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)  
Length-of-proceedings case  
In the following case, the applicant complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to  
a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal)  
proceedings.  
Utyuzhnikova v. Russia (no. 25957/03)  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
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 its  
Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS  
feeds.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)  
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)  
Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
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.  
3