issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 303 (2013)

17.10.2013

Judgments concerning Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Russia,

and Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber

judgments¹, none of which are final. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).

The Court has also delivered today its judgment in the case of Winterstein and Others v. France (application no. 27013/07),

for which a separate press release has been issued.

Horvatić v. Croatia (application no. 36044/09)

The applicant, Mijo Horvatić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Garešnica

(Croatia). The case concerned Mr Horvatić’s complaint about the unfairness of criminal proceedings

brought against him in 1996 on charges of armed robbery. He was subsequently found guilty on the

basis of fibres – taken from his clothes during his police questioning – as well as strands of his hair

being found on the disguise allegedly used by the bank robber. He was sentenced to five years’

imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complained that the evidence against

him had been tampered with by the police, alleging in particular that the police had rubbed together

the robber’s disguise and his clothes and planted the hair, and that he had had no effective

opportunity to challenge that evidence during the trial.

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 euros (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)

Budrevich v. the Czech Republic (no. 65303/10)

The applicant, Andrei Budrevich, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1979. The case concerned

Mr Budrevich’s removal to Belarus. In 2006 he left Belarus and entered the Czech Republic, where

he applied for asylum, stating that he feared imprisonment in Belarus because he had imported

advertisements in support of an opposition candidate in the presidential elections. His request was

rejected as the authorities considered his allegations contradictory and not credible. Three

subsequent requests for asylum were also rejected. Following his conviction of a number of

offences, a court sentenced him to expulsion from the territory of the Czech Republic in March 2009.

However, the execution of the sentence was stayed in accordance with an interim measure applied

by the European Court of Human Rights (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) in November 2010,

indicating to the Czech Government not to remove Mr Budrevich to Belarus until further notice. In

2011, the Czech authorities granted Mr Budrevich subsidiary protection under the Asylum Act, which

was extended in 2013. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and

Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained that his removal to Belarus would expose

him to a real risk of ill-treatment and that he had not had an effective remedy in the Czech Republic

against his removal.

Violation Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3

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

Interim measure (Rule 39 of Rules of Court) – not to remove the applicant – lifted

Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just

satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

Aslanis v. Greece (no. 36401/10)*

The applicant, Georgios Aslanis, is a Greek national. The case concerned his conditions of detention

at Serres police headquarters. Mr Aslanis was arrested in June 2009 on suspicion of committing

several thefts and was charged with a series of thefts carried out as part of a gang. After a brief

period of release on bail, which he failed to pay, he was again remanded in custody. From December

2009 to March 2010 he was held at Serres police headquarters. Mr Aslanis complained that a lack of

ventilation made the air impossible to breathe owing to the unpleasant smells and cigarette smoke.

He further complained of the dirty state of the toilets, overcrowding and a shortage of beds and

food. He alleged that the conditions of detention had been in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of

inhuman or degrading treatment).

Violation of Article 3

Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)

Shyti v. Greece (no. 65911/09)*

The applicant, Petrit Shyti, is an Albanian national who was born in 1983. Following Mr Shyti’s arrest

in February 2009 for cocaine trafficking the public prosecutor at the Thessaloniki Criminal Court

instituted criminal proceedings against him for drug trafficking and possession of forged transport

papers. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention),

Mr Shyti argued, notably, that the examination of his application for release had not complied with

the speediness requirement.

Violation of Article 5 § 4

Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage)

Keller v. Russia (no. 26824/04)

The applicant, Galina Keller, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow. The

case concerned the death of her son, born in 1977, while detained in police custody in September

2000 on suspicion of having stolen a bicycle. The ensuing investigation concluded that he had

jumped from a window into the courtyard of the police station and that there had been no coercion.

Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Keller complained that the authorities failed to

safeguard the life of her son and that there was no effective investigation into the circumstances of

his death. She also complained, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),

that her son had been ill-treated before his death, as bruises had been found on his body, and that

the investigation had been unable to explain the origins of those injuries.

Violation of Article 2 (right to life) – in respect of the authorities’ failure to safeguard the life of the

applicant’s son

No violation of Article 2 (procedure) – as regards the applicant’s allegations that the investigation

into the circumstances of her son’s death had not been effective

Violation of Article 3 (procedure) – in respect of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective

investigation into the origins of the bruises found on the applicant’s son’s body

No violation of Article 3 (treatment) – as regards the bruises found on the applicant’s son’s body

Just satisfaction: EUR 11,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)

Klyukin v. Russia (no. 54996/07)

The applicant, Aleksandr Klyukin, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow.

He was convicted of burglary and sentenced to five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment in a judgment

which became final in May 2007. He alleged that the conditions of his detention in a remand prison

in Moscow between April 2006 and June 2007 and of his detention in two correctional colonies from

June 2007 until his release in November 2009 had been in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of

inhuman or degrading treatment). In particular, he complained of: severely overcrowded cells, a lack

of ventilation and insufficient outdoor exercise in the remand prison; and, insufficient personal

space, scarcity and low quality of the food provided in the correctional colony. He further

maintained that he had not had an effective remedy in respect of his complaints, in breach of

Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

Violation of Article 3 – on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand

prison from April 2006 to June 2007 and the correctional colony between June 2007 and April 2008

No violation of Article 3 – on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the hospital at

the correctional colony from September to November 2007

Violation of Article 13

Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage)

Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia (no. 33023/07)

The applicant, Sergey Vasilyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is serving a ten-year

prison sentence in Yemva, Komi Republic (Russia), for murder. The case concerned Mr Vasilyev’s

complaint about the appalling conditions of his pre-trial detention, notably in remand prison

no. IZ-44/l, from October 2005 (when he was arrested) to April 2007 (just after his conviction was

upheld on appeal). He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading

treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), notably alleging severe overcrowding and a

lack of effective remedies under domestic law to complain about the conditions of his detention. He

also complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) about the excessive length of his

detention while the criminal proceedings against him had still been pending, and under Article 34

(right of individual petition) about the failure of the correctional colony, where he had served part of

his prison sentence, to dispatch his application form to the European Court of Human Rights.

Violation of Article 3 – on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand

prison from October 2005 to April 2007

Violation of Article 13

Violation of Article 5 § 3

No violation of Article 34

Just satisfaction: EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage)

Vladimir Belyayev v. Russia (no. 9967/06)

The applicant, Vladimir Belyayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and is serving a 21-year

prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk region (Russia) for murder and membership of an organised

criminal gang. He was convicted in November 2003. The case concerned the conditions of

Mr Belyayev’s detention between April and December 2005 whilst serving part of his sentence in

correctional colony IK-4 in the Magadan region. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of

inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained that he had been kept in overcrowded cells with

little opportunity for outside exercise.

No violation of Article 3

Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine (no. 42752/08)

The applicants, Nataliya Pozhyvotko and Mariya Pozhyvotko are Ukrainian nationals who live in the

Chernihiv region (Ukraine). They are the widow and mother of Volodymr Pozhyvotko, respectively.

The case concerned the investigation by the Ukrainian authorities into Mr Pozhyvotko’s death on

12 October 2004 when he was shot dead in a local bar. Over the next seven years, investigators

decided to close an investigation into the incident three times, on the grounds that there was

insufficient evidence to charge the main suspect, or that the suspect had acted in self-defense. Each

time the investigation was closed, it was re-opened by a supervisory authority. Investigations were

still ongoing as of 12 April 2012. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Nataliya and Mariya Pozhyvotko

complained that the Ukrainian authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the

death of their husband and son.

Violation of Article 2 (procedure)

Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) to each applicant

Taran v. Ukraine (no. 31898/06)

The applicant, Ivan Taran, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Sevastopol

(Ukraine). The case concerned a number of complaints brought by Mr Taran about the conditions

and lawfulness of his pre-trial detention following his arrest in June 2005 on suspicion of murder.

The Ukrainian courts found him guilty in November 2010 and sentenced him to seven years’

imprisonment. That decision was, however, subsequently quashed on appeal and in April 2011

Mr Taran was released. On 4 December 2012, the proceedings were still pending. Relying on

Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his

transportation between Simferopol detention facility and Sevastopol temporary detention centre

where he was taken on numerous occasions to attend court hearings on his case, alleging that he

had been kept for over 20 hours in a 0.5 sq.m metal cage inside the vehicle without food, water or

being able to sleep. He further alleged overcrowding in Sevastopol temporary detention centre.

Further relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he also complained about: the lawfulness

of his pre-trial detention between August and October 2005 – which he alleged had not been based

on a court decision – as well as of the courts’ extension of his pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 1); the

unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention, which had lasted more than five years and nine

months (Article 5 § 3); the lack of appropriate judicial review of his detention (Article 5 § 4); and, the

absence of an enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 5).

Lastly, he alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him had been

excessive, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).

Violation of Article 3

Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) – as regards the period of the applicant’s detention after 29 November

2005 till 29 December 2005

Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3

Violation of Article 5 § 4

Violation of Article 5 § 5

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 14,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 900 (costs and expenses)

Zubkova v. Ukraine (no. 36660/08)

The applicant, Nina Zubkova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1937 and lives in the city of

Kharkiv (Ukraine). The case concerns Ms Zubkova’s complaint about the authorities’ inadequate

investigation into the death of her son, Igor Zubkov (born in 1961), on 18 May 2002 when, riding his

bicycle, he collided with a minibus at a crossroads in Kharkiv. She notably complains that the

investigation was discontinued and re-opened on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2006

without instructions by the supervising authorities for further steps, namely questioning of

witnesses, expert examinations and a reconstruction of events, being followed through. During the

proceedings, the investigators continued to conclude that the accident had been caused by her son

and not through any fault of the minibus driver. She relies on Article 2 (right to life).

Violation of Article 2 (procedure)

Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (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: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter

@ECHR_Press.

Press contacts

echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

Jean Conte (tel: + 33 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.