EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

applicant’s wife challenged that decision. On 31 July 2000 she was informed that following an additional inquiry the prosecutor had decided not to pursue the investigation. The applicant raised the issue of ill-treatment during the court proceedings against him. He challenged the admissibility of his initial confessions, claiming that they had been extracted by force. The applicant’s defence counsel requested a new medical expert report in order to determine whether the injuries sustained by the applicant could have been caused by beatings. The District Court dismissed that motion on the ground that such an examination had already been carried out. On 15 June 1999 the District Court found the applicant guilty of one count of armed robbery, one count of illegal possession of firearms and several counts of fraud and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 3 November 1999 the Moscow City Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the lower court decision of 15 June 1999. The City Court confirmed the conclusions of the first-instance court and held that no evidence of ill-treatment had been discovered. Questions: 1. Which provision(s) of the Convention could be violated? 2. Was the application admissible? If not, on which grounds? 3. If yes, was there a violation of this provision(s)? 4. What constitutes ill-treatment under the Convention? Please give examples. 5. If you were a judge of the European Court of Human Rights, how would you decide the case? On 26 June 2001 the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the State Enterprise “Khersonskyy Sudnobudivelnyy Zavod”, the applicant’s former employer. According to the Government, these proceedings are still pending. On 4 December 2002 the Komsomolskyy District Court of Kherson ordered that company to pay the applicant UAH 9,879 in salary arrears. On 16 January 2003 the Komsomolskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kherson instituted enforcement proceedings. By letter of 11 September 2003, the Kherson Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor company and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to it had been blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001. On 6 October 2004 the State Property Fund sold 83.61% of the debtor’s share capital to a private company. Under the terms of the sales contract, the latter undertook to pay all the salary-related debts of the debtor company. On 22 June 2005 the full amount of the judgment debt was transferred to the deposit account of the Bailiffs’ Service. The applicant was invited to submit his bank account details to the Bailiffs’ Service. On an unspecified date the applicant received the full amount of the debt. Salary The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Bat-Yam, Israel.

52

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION