issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 162 (2013)

30.05.2013

Judgments concerning Azerbaijan, Estonia, France, Russia,

and Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven

Chamber judgments¹, none of which is final. The judgments in French are indicated with

an asterisk (*).

The Court has also delivered today its judgment in the case of Lavida and Others v. Greece

(application no. 7973/10), for which a separate press release has been issued.

Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 31848/07)

The applicant, Ahmadshah Zeynalov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1935

and lives in Siyazan (Azerbaijan). In December 2004 he was found guilty of having

cultivated a plot of land which did not belong to him, and sentenced to pay a fine. The

judgment was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in October 2006. Relying on

Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights,

Mr Zeynalov complained that one of the Supreme Court judges who had sat on the panel

which had handed down the final judgment in his case had already taken part in an

earlier decision concerning his cassation appeal and could therefore not have been

impartial.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)

Martin v. Estonia (no. 35985/09)

The applicant, Keijo Martin, is an Estonian national who was born in 1988. He is

currently serving a ten-year prison sentence for a murder committed in 2006, his

conviction for that offence having been upheld by the Supreme Court in January 2009.

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of

own choosing), he complained that his defence rights had been violated as his lawyer

had been denied access to him during the pre-trial proceedings and his conviction had

been based on evidence obtained during those proceedings.

Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)

Just satisfaction: EUR 4,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,821,54 (costs and

expenses)

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month

period following a 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

Rafaa v. France (no. 25393/10)*

The applicant, Rachid Rafaa, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1976 and lives in

Metz (France). The case concerned his extradition to Morocco, which he claimed would

jeopardise his life and safety. After arriving in France illegally from Morocco, where he

alleged he had been detained and tortured by the secret services because of his support

for the Sahrawi cause, Mr Rafaa was apprehended and placed in administrative

detention. When the Moroccan authorities issued an international arrest warrant against

him for acts of terrorism, he was imprisoned with a view to his extradition in 2009. The

French courts approved the extradition. The applicant appealed but his appeal was

dismissed in 2010. The French authorities issued a decree with a view to his extradition,

and his appeal to the Conseil d’État was rejected in 2011. In the meantime Mr Rafaa had

also applied for asylum, but that application was rejected in 2010, as was his application

for legal aid to appeal on points of law. The applicant alleged in particular that his

extradition to Morocco would expose him to risks of treatment contrary to Article 3

(prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment).

Violation of Article 3 (in the event of the applicant’s expulsion to Morocco)

Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) – not to expel Mr Rafaa – still in

force until judgment becomes final or until further order.

Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction.

Davitidze v. Russia (no. 8810/05)

The applicant, Levan Davitidze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1960. In a

judgment of April 2004, upheld in August 2004, he was convicted of the procurement,

possession and supply of heroin. The conviction of procurement and possession of drugs

was excluded in a supervisory review by the presidium of the Moscow City Court in

March 2009, and his prison sentence was reduced from eight years to seven years and

six months. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading

treatment), Mr Davitidze complained that during and following his arrest on 20 August

2003 he had been ill-treated by police officers – he alleged in particular that he had been

hit with a gun handle and that a suffocating technique had been used on him – and that

there had been no effective investigation into those complaints.

Two violations of Article 3 (ill-treatment + ineffective investigation)

Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,130 (costs and

expenses)

Malofeyeva v. Russia (no. 36673/04)

The applicant, Antonina Malofeyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1953 and

lives in Irkutsk (Russia). Charged with fraud for allegedly misappropriating money in the

private company for which she had worked, she was placed in detention on remand in

November 2003, where she remained until her release in May 2004. In a judgment of

September 2007, upheld in July 2008, she was acquitted of the fraud charges. While the

criminal proceedings against her were still pending, Ms Malofeyeva was arrested again

on 7 June 2005, together with two friends, for organising a demonstration outside the

Federal Judges Qualifications Board building in Moscow to protest against the allegedly

“unlawful actions of public authorities and corruption”. In a court hearing on the same

day, Ms Malofeyeva was found guilty of the administrative offence of non-compliance

with a lawful order by a police officer and sentenced to seven days’ detention. Relying in

particular on Article 5 §§ 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Ms Malofeyeva

complained that she had not been promptly informed of the reasons for her arrest in

November 2003 and that her appeal against her detention order had not been examined

speedily. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), she complained that in the

proceedings concerning the alleged administrative offence she had not had a fair and

public hearing. Lastly, she complained that the dispersal of the demonstration by the

police and her arrest and prosecution for an administrative offence had been in breach of

Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).

Violation of Article 5 § 2

Violation of Article 5 § 4

Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3

Violation of Article 11, assessed in the light of Article 10

Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the

time-limit set.

OOO ‘Vesti’ and Ukhov v. Russia (no. 21724/03)

The applicants in this case are a Russian limited liability company based in Kirov

(Russia), which publishes the newspaper Gubernskie Vesti, and one of the newspaper’s

journalists, Sergey Ukhov, a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Kirov.

The case concerned defamation proceedings following the publication of an article

written by Mr Ukhov in August 2002 which had made critical statements about a high-

ranking local official and his involvement in a regional cultural project. The newspaper’s

editorial board and Mr Ukhov were ordered to pay the plaintiff damages, and the

newspaper was ordered to publish a retraction statement drafted by the plaintiff, in court

decisions upheld in substance in December 2002. The applicants complained that those

decisions had violated their rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression). They also

complained that the courts which had examined the defamation claim had been biased

and that the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms had been

breached, contrary to Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

No violation of Article 10

No violation of Article 6 § 1 (as regards both the alleged partiality of the courts and

the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms)

Nataliya Mikhaylenko v. Ukraine (no. 49069/11)

The applicant, Nataliya Mikhaylenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1971 and

lives in Simferopol (Crimea, Ukraine). As she was suffering from a severe mental illness,

Ms Mikhaylenko’s father applied to the courts in 2007, seeking to deprive her of her legal

capacity. Following a forensic psychiatric expert’s opinion, the courts granted her father’s

request in July 2007. When her health improved, Ms Mikhaylenko applied to have her

legal capacity restored. Relying on Article

6 § 1 (right of access to court),

Ms Mikhaylenko complained that the district court had rejected her application in

November 2010 without having considered it on the merits, as under the Ukrainian Code

of Civil Procedure an incapacitated person is not entitled to submit such an application.

The decision was eventually upheld in March 2011.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 3,600 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,038 (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: