Just satisfaction
Kalinova v. Bulgaria (no. 45116/98)
The applicant, Bonka Petrova Kalinova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Nova Zagora (Bulgaria).
In a judgment of 8 November 2007 the
Court had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection
of property) on account of the annulment of the applicant’s title to a
house by an over-extensive application of the legislation on
restitution of property nationalised during the communist regime,
following proceedings brought by the former owners of the property. The
Court had also considered that at that time the question of the
application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for
decision.
In today’s judgment the Court awarded
the applicant EUR 27,000 euros for pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for
non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
Mirchev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 71605/01)
The applicants are nine Bulgarian nationals, Stoyan Mihaylov
Mirchev, Stanish Bonev Panayotov, Emil Yordanov Hristov, Milko Kalev
Balev (now deceased), Yordan Nikolov Yotov, Grigor Georgiev Stoichkov,
Ivan Stoyanov Iliev, Georgi Mitev Karamanev and Georgi Yordanov
Momchev, born in 1930, 1925, 1920, 1920, 1926, 1931, 1934, 1931 and
1924, respectively. Prior to 1989 all nine applicants had leading
positions in the Council of Ministers (the government) and the
Bulgarian Communist Party.
The case concerned the applicants’
complaint about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against
them for abuse of office and misappropriation. Those proceedings were
ultimately discontinued as, in particular, the applicants’ actions were
not punishable under domestic criminal legislation at the relevant
time. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a
reasonable time).
The Court considered that the length,
more than seven years and six months, of the criminal proceedings
against the applicants had been excessive and therefore held
unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The
applicants did not submit any claims for just satisfaction; therefore,
the Court made no such award.
Violation of Article 3 (treatment)
Violation of Article 13
Slavcho Kostov v. Bulgaria (no. 28674/03)
The applicant, Slavcho Dimitrov Kostov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Zhelyu Voivoda (Bulgaria).
In September 1995 Mr Kostov was
arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on charges of aiding and
abetting murder. Released in October 1995, the criminal proceedings
against him were subsequently terminated due to lack of evidence. In
1999 he brought compensation proceedings concerning in particular the
conditions of his detention at Sliven Regional Investigation Service
detention facility under the State and Municipalities Responsibility
for Damage Act 1988. In 2001 the courts ruled in the applicant’s
favour, finding among other things that he had been held in “extremely
harsh conditions”, notably in an overcrowded cell, with no access to a
toilet, bathing or other hygiene facilities. Furthermore, he had only
been given food once a day and had not been allowed visits from friends
or relatives. He was awarded 3,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (approximately
EUR 1,538) compensation for
non-pecuniary damage, less BGN 1,880 (approximately EUR 964) by way of
court fees on the dismissed part of his claim.
Relying, in particular, on Article 3
(prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right
to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about the conditions
of his pre-trial detention and that the compensation subsequently
awarded to him on that account was inadequate, in particular given the
high court fees he had had to pay.
The Court noted the domestic courts’
findings concerning the fact that the applicant had been held in
“extremely harsh conditions” at Sliven detention facility. In those
circumstances, the Court considered that the distress and hardship the
applicant had endured had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering
inherent in detention and therefore held unanimously that there had
been a violation of Article 3. Furthermore, the Court established that
it was not possible to determine which part of the compensation awarded
to the applicant had been intended to redress his detention at the
Sliven detention facility in conditions which the domestic courts
considered “extremely harsh” but it could not have been more than the
sum left following payment of the court fees, namely BGN 1,120
(EUR 574). It considered that amount inadequate. The Court therefore
held unanimously that there had also been a
violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of adequate redress for
the violation under Article 3. Mr Kostov was awarded EUR 1,500 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was
declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4
Rashed v. Czech Republic (no. 298/07)
The applicant, Mohamed Magdi Mansour Rashed, is an Egyptian national who was born in 1988. He is reportedly in Egypt at present.
In August 2006 the applicant applied
for asylum on arriving at Prague international airport and was placed
in the reception centre in the airport’s transit zone. In September
2006 he was transferred to the Velké Přílepy facility of the Ministry
of the Interior, where he remained until April 2007. He was then
returned to the reception centre. In June 2007 he left the country on a
voluntary-return basis after his asylum application had been rejected.
The applicant alleged that his
detention in the Velké Přílepy facility had been unlawful. He further
alleged that his complaint about the lawfulness of his detention had
not been examined speedily. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (right to
liberty and security) and 5 § 4 (right to a speedy review of the
lawfulness of detention).
The Court noted that the applicant
had been deprived of his liberty without any formal decision to take
him into custody. He had thus been entitled to speedy and effective
review by a court. But no judicial decision on the lawfulness of his
detention had been given during the ten-month detention period.
Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a
violation of Article 5 § 4.
Furthermore, the Court observed that
the quality of the Czech asylum law in force at the relevant time had
not been sufficient for it to constitute a legal basis for the
applicant’s deprivation of liberty, as it did not afford adequate
protection or the necessary legal certainty to prevent arbitrary
interference by the public authorities with the rights guaranteed by
the Convention. The Court therefore found unanimously that there had
been a violation of Article 5 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 2,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in
French.)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
Krivonosov v. Russia (no. 3023/03)
The applicant, Yaroslav Yakovlevich Krivonosov, is a Russian
national who was born in 1966 and lives in Barnaul (Russia). He was the
president of a private commercial bank and owns several businesses in
Barnaul.
The case concerned his complaint
about the length of criminal proceedings against him for fraud. He
relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a
reasonable time).
The Court held unanimously that there
had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive
length, almost six years, of the criminal proceedings against the
applicant. Mr Krivonosov was awarded EUR 2,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Violations of Article 3 (treatment and investigation)
Ismailov v. Ukraine (no. 17323/04)
The applicant, Alim Ayderovich Ismailov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine).
On 14 March 2001 Mr Ismailov was
arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of armed robbery;
he was subsequently convicted as charged. He alleged that, during the
time he was held in police custody at Simferopol District Police
Station on those charges, he was repeatedly kicked and punched by
police officers in order to extract a confession from him. On 19 March
2001 the applicant was examined by a medical expert who reported that
he had sustained bruising to his eyes and left ear and abrasions to his
right temple and lower lip and concluded that those injuries had
occurred four to seven days beforehand and that they had been caused by
somebody’s fists or boots. The applicant lodged numerous complaints
about his ill-treatment with various police officials and prosecutors
but was unsuccessful. On 5 November 2002 the domestic courts issued a
separate ruling which established that the applicant had
sustained injuries while in police custody and suggesting that the
offenders be identified and punished. Subsequently, the prosecution
authorities decided on two occasions not to bring criminal proceedings
against the police officers concerned. Those decisions were quashed by
the domestic courts and remitted for further enquiries. Ultimately, the
investigation was terminated on 20 November 2003 due to lack of
evidence; no explanation was provided as to the origin of the
applicant’s injuries.
The case concerned the applicant’s
allegation that he was ill-treated while in police custody and that the
authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his
allegations. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or
degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).
The Court considered that the
material before it, notably the medical report of 19 March 2001 and the
court ruling of 5 November 2002, showed that the applicant’s injuries
had been inflicted when he had been in police custody. The Government
had not contested that the injuries had occurred when the applicant had
been under the control of the State authorities. Nor had the domestic
authorities provided any other plausible explanation. The Court
therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3
on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment while in police custody.
The Court further noted that the
decisions not to bring criminal proceedings and the various remittals
had resulted in it having taken about two years and two months for the
authorities to commence the criminal proceedings. That delay
significantly diminished any prospect of success of those proceedings.
Moreover, the Court was struck by the fact that the decision of
20 November 2003 had not provided any explanation concerning the origin
of the applicant’s injuries. In conclusion, despite hard evidence that
the applicant had been the victim of violence in police custody, the
domestic authorities had not made any serious attempt to investigate
his allegations. The Court therefore held that the domestic authorities
had failed to carry out a prompt and thorough investigation into the
applicant’s complaint, in further violation of Article 3. It also held
unanimously that there was no need to examine the
complaint under Article 13. Mr Ismailov was awarded EUR 6,500 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in
English.)
Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Miroshnik v. Ukraine (no. 75804/01)
The applicant, Aleksey Vasilyevich Miroshnik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Akimovka (Ukraine).
Dismissed from the armed forces in
December 1998, Mr Miroshnik subsequently brought several sets of
proceedings in the military courts against the military enlistment
offices and the Ministry of Defence concerning, in particular, his
uniform expenses and the unlawfulness of his dismissal. In June 1999 it
was ordered that the applicant be paid his uniform expenses in full; in
March 2001 the claim concerning the applicant’s dismissal was returned
to him for failure to submit evidence.
The case concerned the applicant’s
complaint, in particular, about non-enforcement of the decision in his
favour with regard to his uniform expenses and the lack of independence
of the military courts in the proceedings concerning his unlawful
dismissal. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
The Court held unanimously that there
had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
on account of non-enforcement of the decision to pay the applicant in
full his uniform expenses. It also noted that under domestic law not
only had the judges of the military courts, as servicemen belonging to
the armed forces, been subordinate to the Ministry of Defence, but they
had also depended on that ministry for accommodation and funding,
logistical support and maintenance. Indeed, that procedure of financing
was repealed in 2002. The Court therefore found a further violation of
Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of the military courts’
independence in the proceedings with regard to the lawfulness of the
applicant’s dismissal. Mr Miroshnik was awarded EUR 2,000 in respect of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The
judgment is available only in English.)
Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3
Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine (nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03)
The applicants, Igor Yevgenyevich Solovey and Anton
Valentinovich Zozulya, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1981
and are currently serving, respectively, a 10-year and
