Москва
+7-929-527-81-33
Вологда
+7-921-234-45-78
Вопрос юристу онлайн Юридическая компания ЛЕГАС Вконтакте

Новости от 23 июля 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 23.07.2018 11:41

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 29 марта 2018 по делу "Белков и другие (Belkov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 8344/12, 66632/13, 42103/16, 45922/16, 47150/16, 54783/16 и 62556/16).

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда. Один заявитель также жаловался на чрезмерную длительность судебного рассмотрения жалобы о мере пресечения в виде заключения под стражу. По делу допущено нарушение требований в отношении всех заявителей пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность), в отношении одного заявителя требование пункта 4 статьи 5 (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность) Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

В 2012, 2015 и 2016 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

В своих жалобах заявители (семь человек) жаловались на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда. Один заявитель также жаловался на чрезмерную длительность судебного рассмотрения жалобы о мере пресечения в виде заключения под стражу.

29 марта 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность) в отношении всех заявителей, требование пункта 4 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность) в отношении одного заявителя, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 17 800 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда. Заявителям были присуждены различные суммы от 1 400 до 2 900 евро.

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/434-belkov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

The ECHR judgment of 29 March 2018 in the case "Belkov and Others v. Russian Federation" (applications N 8344/12, 66632/13, 42103/16, 45922/16, 47150/16, 54783/16 and 62556 / 16).

The applicants successfully complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention. One applicant also complained about the excessive length of the judicial examination of the complaint about the measure of restraint in the form of detention. The case involved a violation of the requirements for all the applicants of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person), in respect of one applicant, the requirement of Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security of person) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In 2012, 2015 and 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

In their complaints, the applicants (seven) complained of the excessive length of pre-trial detention. One applicant also complained about the excessive length of the judicial examination of the complaint about the measure of restraint in the form of detention.

On 29 March 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and personal inviolability) in respect of one applicant and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 17,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,400 to 2,900 euros.

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/435-belkov-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 29 марта 2018 года по делу "А.К. и другие (A.K. and Others v. Russia) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 7130/08, 32834/16, 50530/16, 50531/16, 52484/16 и 57926/16).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также указывали на то, что не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении всех заявителей, статьи 13 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении некоторых заявителей.

 

В 2008 и 2016 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (шесть человек) жаловались на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. Отдельные заявители также указывали на то, что не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

29 марта 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток) в отношении всех заявителей, требование статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты) в отношении отдельных заявителей, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 40 600 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/436-a-k-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 29 March 2018 in the case "AK and Others v. Russia v. Russia" (applications N 7130/08, 32834/16, 50530/16, 50531/16, 52484/16 and 57926/16).

 

In the case, the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, and certain applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case involved a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to all the applicants, Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to certain applicants.

 

In 2008 and 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (six) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Individual claimants also indicated that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 29 March 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 40,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/437-a-k-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 29 марта 2018 года по делу "Немцев и другие (Nemtsev and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 22722/14, 49400/16, 49635/16, 72677/16, 73716/16, 73788/16 и 4495/17).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также указывали на то, что не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении всех заявителей и статьи 13 Конвенции в отношении некоторых заявителей.

 

В 2014 и 2016 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (семь человек) жаловались на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. Отдельные заявители также указывали на то, что не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

29 марта 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток) в отношении всех заявителей, требование статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты) в отношении отдельных заявителей, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 60 400 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/438-nemtsev-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 29 March 2018 in the case of Nemtsev and Others v. Russia (applications no. 22722/14, 49400/16, 49635/16, 72677/16, 73716/16, 73788/16 and 4495 / 17).

 

In the case, the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, and certain applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case involved a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to all the applicants and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of certain applicants.

 

In 2014 and 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (seven) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Individual claimants also indicated that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 29 March 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 60,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/439-nemtsev-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 29 марта 2018 года по делу "Фаткин и другие (Fatkin and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 21778/08, 22616/13, 54510/15, 3708/16, 5002/16, 38173/16 и 4069/17).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также указывали на то, что не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении всех заявителей и статьи 13 Конвенции в отношении некоторых заявителей.

 

В 2008, 2013, 2015 и 2016 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (семь человек) жаловались на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. Отдельные заявители также указывали на то, что не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

29 марта 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток) в отношении всех заявителей, требование статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты) в отношении отдельных заявителей, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 84 800 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/440-fatkin-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 29 March 2018 in the case of Fatkin and Others v. Russia (applications no. 21778/08, 22616/13, 54510/15, 3708/16, 5002/16, 38173/16 and 4069 / 17).

 

In the case, the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, and certain applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case involved a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to all the applicants and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of certain applicants.

 

In 2008, 2013, 2015 and 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (seven) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Individual claimants also indicated that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 29 March 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 84,800 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/441-fatkin-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 29 марта 2018 года по делу "Ничепорук и другие (Nicheporuk and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 19538/10, 35782/12 и 37026/13).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, которые были несовместимы с их ограниченными физическими возможностями, один заявитель также указывал на то, что не располагал эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении всех заявителей и статьи 13 Конвенции в отношении некоторых заявителей.

 

В 2010, 2012 и 2013 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (три человека) жаловались на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, которые были несовместимы с их ограниченными физическими возможностями. Один заявитель также указывал на то, что не располагал эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

29 марта 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток) в отношении всех заявителей, требование статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты) в отношении одного заявителя, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить двум заявителям по 15 000 евро каждому в качестве компенсации.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/442-nicheporuk-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 29 March 2018 in the case of Nicheporuk and Others v. Russia (applications No. 19538/10, 35782/12 and 37026/13).

 

The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints about inhuman conditions of detention, which were incompatible with their limited physical capabilities, one applicant also pointed out that he did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case involved a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to all the applicants and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of certain applicants.

 

In 2010, 2012 and 2013, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (three persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention, which were incompatible with their limited physical capabilities. One applicant also pointed out that he did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 29 March 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) in respect of one applicant , and ordered the respondent State to pay two applicants EUR 15,000 each in compensation.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/443-nicheporuk-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Urteil des EGMR vom 30. Mai 2017 des Fall „N.A. (N.A.) gegen die Schweiz“ (Beschwerde N 50364/14) und die EGMR Urteil vom 30. Mai 2017 „wirksamer Bestandteil (A. I.) gegen die Schweiz“ (Beschwerde N 23378/15).

 

In den Jahren 2014 und 2015 wurden die Antragsteller bei der Vorbereitung von Beschwerden unterstützt. Anschließend wurden Beschwerden an die Schweiz übermittelt.

 

Im Fall adressiert erfolgreich eine Beschwerde an den angeblichen Vertreibung der Staatsangehörigkeit der Antragsteller der führenden oppositionellen politischen Aktivitäten im Exil des Landes. Im Fall wäre keine Verletzung von Artikeln 2 und 3 der Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten bei der 1 Ausweisung des Antragstellers sein. Auf dem Fall wird für den Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten bei der Ausweisung des Antragstellers, 2 eine Verletzung von Artikeln 2 und 3 des Übereinkommens.

 

 

 

UMSTÄNDE DES FALLES

 


Beide Antragsteller sind aktive Mitglieder der Bewegung für Gerechtigkeit und Gleichheit (im Folgenden JEM), die eine der größten Rebellengruppen ist, die dem sudanesischen Regime bewaffneten Widerstand leistet. A.I. ist Mitglied der Organisation für Frieden und Entwicklung in Darfur (im Folgenden DFEZ). Die Antragsteller beantragten Asyl in der Schweiz, aber die Bundesmigrationsbehörde (jetzt Staatssekretariat für Migration - SEM) entschied, dass sie keinen Flüchtlingsstatus hatte und lehnte ihre Asylanträge ab, die aus der Schweiz ausgewiesen werden sollten.

 


Fragen des Gesetzes

 


Zur Einhaltung der Artikel 2 und 3 des Übereinkommens. Nach dem Urteil in der Rechtssache AA gegen die Schweiz kann nicht behauptet werden, dass die Geheimdienste des Sudan eine systematische Überwachung der Aktivitäten politischer Gegner im Ausland durchführen und beurteilen, ob Personen verdächtigt werden, Organisationen zu unterstützen, die sich den Sudanesen widersetzen und damit Gefahr laufen, im Falle einer Ausweisung in den Sudan wegen ihrer politischen Aktivitäten im Exil der Misshandlung und Folter ausgesetzt zu sein. Eine Reihe von Faktoren muss berücksichtigt werden.

 

Angesichts der Gründe für die Flucht der Beschwerdeführer hat der Gerichtshof in der SEM-Beurteilung, die zu dem Schluss gelangte, dass ihre Behauptungen nicht stichhaltig seien, keine Tatsachen ermittelt, die den Zweifel rechtfertigen könnten. Es gab auch keine Hinweise darauf, dass die sudanesischen Behörden Interesse an den Antragstellern zeigten, als sie noch im Sudan oder im Ausland lebten, bevor sie in der Schweiz ankamen.

 

Die Mitgliedschaft der Antragsteller in JEM und A.I. in DFEZ war ein Faktor, der eine Gefahr der Verfolgung erzeugt. Die JEM war eine der wichtigsten Rebellenbewegungen im Sudan, und die Gefahr, die sie für die sudanesischen Behörden darstellt, ist im Zusammenhang mit der Legitimität, die sie im Zusammenhang mit dem Konflikt in Darfur erworben hat, gestiegen.

 

a) Fall N.A. Politische Aktivität N.A. in der Schweiz nicht wirklich seit mehr als drei Jahren, und er konnte nicht als aktiver politischer Gegner des sudanesischen Regimes angesehen werden. Entsprechend beschränkten sich seine politischen Aktivitäten in der Schweiz auf die bloße Teilnahme an der Arbeit von Oppositionsorganisationen im Exil und hätten die Aufmerksamkeit der Nachrichtendienste des Sudan nicht auf sich ziehen dürfen. Er könne nicht behaupten, persönliche oder familiäre Bindungen zu bekannten Oppositionsmitgliedern im Exil gehabt zu haben, die ihn gefährden könnten. Vor diesem Hintergrund hätten politische Aktivitäten im Exil, die sich auf die bloße Teilnahme an der Arbeit von Oppositionsorganisationen im Exil beschränkten, nicht die Aufmerksamkeit der Geheimdienste des Sudan auf sich gezogen. Dementsprechend droht ihm im Falle seiner Ausweisung in den Sudan keine Misshandlung und Folter im Zusammenhang mit seinem Exil.

 

Schließlich stellte das Gericht fest, dass die Verfolgung der Klägerin eine Bedrohung war wegen seiner ethnischen Herkunft, da sie nicht behauptet werden, dass in Darfur zu einer nicht-arabischen Volksgruppe gehört.

 


ENTSCHEIDUNG

 


Im Falle der Erfordernisse der Artikel 2 und 3 des Übereinkommens im Falle des Ausschlusses von N.A. der Sudan wird nicht verletzt (einstimmig).

 

(b) Fall A.I. Antragsteller die KI, die bereits in politischen Aktivitäten in dem Maße, in Eingriff ist, dass ein nicht unbedeutender, im Laufe der Zeit, auch durch mehr mitreißen, wie aus ihrer Teilnahme an internationalen Konferenzen über die Menschenrechtslage in Sudan zu sehen ist, veröffentlichte er kritische Artikel über die sudanesische Regime und seine Ernennung der Posten des Medienchefs von JEM. Trotz der Tatsache, dass A.I. Man könnte nicht davon ausgehen, dass er einen sehr starken politischen Einfluss hat, zumal er auf diesen Konferenzen nie im Namen einer oppositionellen Organisation gesprochen hat. Daher sollte die spezifische Situation im Sudan berücksichtigt werden.

 

Infolge der Teilnahme an JEMA-Aktivitäten hat der Antragsteller A.I. Er besuchte regelmässig und oft die Führer der Schweizer Sektion dieser Bewegung, aber er behauptete nicht, persönliche oder familiäre Beziehungen zu bekannten Mitgliedern der Opposition im Exil zu unterhalten, die eine Bedrohung für ihn darstellen könnten. Als Individuum und aufgrund seiner politischen Aktivitäten im Exil machte er jedoch auf die Geheimdienste des Sudan aufmerksam. Er könnte der Mitgliedschaft in einer Organisation, die sich dem sudanesischen Regime widersetzt, verdächtigt werden. Dementsprechend gab es hinreichende Gründe zu der Annahme, dass A.I. ausgesetzt, in Gewahrsam genommen, um die Bedrohung zu werden, abgefragt und bei der Ankunft im Sudan gefoltert und dass es in dem Land, die normalerweise nicht aufhalten kann.

 


ENTSCHEIDUNG

 


Im Falle des Ausschlusses von A.I. wird ein Verstoß gegen die Bestimmungen der Artikel 2 und 3 der Konvention vorliegen. im Sudan (einstimmig angenommen).

 


Entschädigung

 


In der Anwendung von Artikel 41 des Übereinkommens. Es gab keine Forderungen nach Zahlung einer Entschädigung.

 

 

 

Quelle der Veröffentlichung: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/428-n-a-gegen-die-schweiz-und-a-i-gegen-die-schweiz .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 30 May 2017 in the case "N.A. (N.A.) v. Switzerland" (application No. 50364/14) and the ECtHR judgment of 30 May 2017 "A.I. (A.I.) v. Switzerland" (application No. 23378/15).

 

In 2014 and 2015, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, applications were communicated to Switzerland.

 

In the case, the complaints about the alleged expulsion of the citizenship of the applicants who conduct political opposition activities in exile were successfully considered. No violation of the requirements of Articles 2, 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the event of the expulsion of the applicant-1 will be allowed in the case. There will be violations of the requirements of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the event of the expulsion of the applicant-2.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


Both applicants are active members of the Movement for Justice and Equality (hereinafter referred to as JEM), which is one of the largest rebel groups that provides armed resistance to the Sudanese regime. A.I. is also a member of the organization advocating peace and development in Darfur (hereinafter referred to as DFEZ). The applicants applied for asylum in Switzerland, but the Federal Migration Body (now the State Secretariat for Migration Affairs - SEM) decided that they did not have refugee status, and rejected their asylum applications, ordered to be expelled from Switzerland.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 

 

 

Concerning compliance with articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. After the judgment in the case AA v. Switzerland, it can not be asserted that the secret services of the Sudan conduct systematic monitoring of the activities of political opponents abroad and to assess whether persons suspected of supporting organizations opposing the Sudanese regime, and thus risk being exposed to threats of ill-treatment and torture in the event of expulsion to the Sudan because of their political activities in exile. A number of factors must be taken into account.

 

Given the reasons for the applicants' escape, the Court did not establish any facts that could justify the doubt in the SEM assessment, which concluded that their allegations were not reliable. There was also no evidence that the Sudanese authorities showed interest in the applicants when they were still living in Sudan or abroad before arriving in Switzerland.

 

However, the applicants' membership in JEM, and A.I. in DFEZ was a factor that generates a threat of persecution. JEM was one of the main rebel movements in the Sudan, and the danger it poses to the Sudanese authorities has increased in connection with the legitimacy it acquired in connection with the conflict in Darfur.

 

(a) Case N.A. Political activity N.A. in Switzerland did not really increase for more than three years, and he could not be considered an active political opponent of the Sudanese regime. Accordingly, his political activities in Switzerland were limited to mere participation in the work of opposition organizations in exile and should not have attracted the attention of the intelligence services of the Sudan. He could not claim to have had personal or family ties with well-known members of the opposition in exile who could pose a threat to him. In view of the foregoing, political activities in exile, which were limited to mere participation in the work of opposition organizations in exile, should not have attracted the attention of the intelligence services of the Sudan. Accordingly, he would not be at risk of ill-treatment and torture in connection with his exile in the event of his expulsion to the Sudan.

 

Finally, the Court did not find that there was a threat of persecution of the applicant because of his ethnic origin, since he did not claim to belong to a non-Arab ethnic group in Darfur.

 


DECISION

 


In the case of the requirements of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the event of the expulsion of N.A. the Sudan will not be violated (unanimously).

 

(b) Case A.I. The AI ​​applicant, who was already engaged in political activities in a degree that is not insignificant, eventually became even more carried away by it, as can be seen from his participation in international conferences on the human rights situation in the Sudan, his publication of articles critical of the Sudanese regime and his appointment to the the post of media director of JEM. Despite the fact that A.I. could not be considered to have a very significant political influence, especially since he had never spoken on behalf of an opposition organization at these conferences, the specific situation in the Sudan should be taken into account.

 

As a result of participation in JEMA activities, the applicant A.I. regularly and often visited the leaders of the Swiss branch of this movement, but he did not claim to have personal or family ties with well-known members of the opposition in exile who could pose a threat to him. However, as an individual and because of his political activities in exile, he drew the attention of the intelligence services of the Sudan. He could be suspected of membership in an organization opposing the Sudanese regime. Accordingly, there were reasonable grounds to believe that A.I. will face the threat of being detained, questioned and tortured upon arrival at the airport in Sudan and that he will not be able to live normally in the country.

 

 

 

DECISION

 


There will be a violation of the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the case of the expulsion of A.I. in Sudan (unanimously adopted).

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. There were no demands for payment of any compensation.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/429-n-a-v-switzerland-and-a-i-v-switzerland .

 

 

Hotărârea CEDO din 23 mai 2017 în cauza Balsan contra României (plângerea nr. 49645/09).

 

În 2009, reclamantul a fost asistat la pregătirea plângerii. Ulterior, plângerea a fost comunicată României.

 

Cazul a examinat cu succes plângerea reclamantului privind evitarea luării unor măsuri rezonabile de către autorități pentru a elimina violența domestică împotriva femeilor. Cazul a fost încălcat cerințele articolelor 3, 14 ale Convenției pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANȚELE CAUZEI

 


Reclamantul a declarat că fostul său soț a folosit violență în timpul căsătoriei sale. În timpul procedurilor de divorț, atacurile sale asupra ei au crescut, iar ea a depus mai multe plângeri la poliție. Curtea Europeană reclamantul sa plâns că a fost abuzat de soțul ei și că autoritățile au ferit de bordură sau prevenirea acestor acțiuni.

 


ASPECTE ALE LEGII

 


Cu privire la respectarea articolului 3 al Convenției (problema respectării de către stat a obligațiilor sale pozitive (aspecte procedurale și juridice)). Violența fizică suferită de reclamant a fost înregistrată în înregistrările criminalistice și de poliție. În etapele de investigare și în instanțe, autoritățile interne au considerat acte de violență în familie provocate și, prin urmare, nu suficient de serioase pentru a fi clasificate drept legea penală. Esența cazului a fost problema impunității pentru actele de violență în familie. Solicitantul a folosit pe deplin a măsurii corective prevăzute în procedura penală, dar autoritățile române, deși conștientă de situația ei, nu a luat măsuri eficiente pentru a pedepsi infractorului și pentru a preveni alte atacuri.

 


DECIZIE

 


În caz de încălcare a cerințelor articolului 3 al Convenției (în unanimitate) a fost comisă.

 

Articolul 14 din Convenție, coroborat cu articolul 3 al Convenției. Evaziunea statului de la protecția femeilor împotriva violenței domestice le-a încălcat dreptul la protecție egală prin lege. Statisticile oficiale arată că majoritatea populației violenței România Pet și chiar a considerat că este normal și că un număr relativ mic de incidente raportate a fost însoțită de o anchetă penală. Numărul victimelor violenței domestice a crescut de la an la an, iar o mare majoritate a victimelor au fost femei. Aceste considerații au fost în concordanță cu concluziile anterioare ale Comitetului ONU pentru eliminarea discriminării împotriva femeilor. Sesiunea 35th împotriva femeilor, Comitetul ONU pentru Eliminarea Discriminării, concluzionând comentarii cu privire la România, CEDAW / C / ROM / CO / 6, cincisprezecelea mai-două iunie 2006 autoritățile naționale erau conștienți de faptul că reclamantul a fost supus violenței constante din parte a soțului ei. Ei sunt lipsiți de obiectivul cadrului juridic național, subliniind că reclamanta însăși provoacă violența în familie și că violența nu reprezintă un pericol pentru societate, așa că nu a fost suficient de severe pentru a necesita utilizarea unor sancțiuni penale. În același timp, acestea acționează într-un mod clar în contradicție cu standardele internaționale în ceea ce privește violența împotriva femeilor și a violenței domestice, în special (a se vedea., De exemplu, Convenția Consiliului Europei privind prevenirea și combaterea violenței împotriva femeilor și a violenței în familie (Convenția de la Istanbul). Pasivitatea autorităților în cazul de față a fost, de asemenea, evident în ceea ce privește abaterea lor de la luarea în considerare a măsurilor de protecție a solicitantului, în pofida solicitărilor sale repetate la poliție, procurorul și instanțele de judecată. Ținând cont de vulnerabilitatea deosebită a victimelor violenței în familie, VLA STI a trebuit să ia în considerare situația reclamantului mai bine. Violența, care a fost supus reclamantul ar putea fi considerate ca fiind violența pe motive de gen, care este o formă de discriminare împotriva femeilor. În ciuda adoptării de către statul pârât a legii și strategia națională de prevenire și de a aborda violența în familie, imunitatea generală a sistemului judiciar și impunitatea agresorilor, așa cum sa stabilit în cazul de față, a arătat că nu există o activitate suficientă pentru luarea măsurilor de combatere a violenței domestice Eu mănânc. Sistemul penal în vigoare în cauză nu a avut un efect de descurajare adecvat care ar putea împiedica efectiv acțiunile ilegale ale soțului reclamantului împotriva integrității personale a reclamantului.

 


DECIZIE

 


În cazul în care a avut loc o încălcare a cerințelor articolului 14 din Convenție (adoptată în unanimitate).

 


COMPENSARE

 


În aplicarea articolului 41 al Convenției. Curtea a acordat reclamantului 9.800 de euro (EUR) pentru prejudiciul moral.

 

 

 

Sursa de publicare: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/430-balsan-contra-rom-niei .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 23 May 2017 in the case of Balsan v. Romania (application No. 49645/09).

 

In 2009, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Romania.

 

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint about the authorities' avoidance of taking reasonable measures to eliminate domestic violence against women. The case was violated the requirements of Articles 3, 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant stated that her ex-husband had used violence throughout her marriage. During the divorce proceedings, his attacks on her increased, and she filed several complaints to the police. In the European Court, the applicant complained that she had been subjected to violence by her husband and that the authorities had avoided suppressing or preventing these actions.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 3 of the Convention (the issue of compliance by the State with its positive obligations (procedural and legal aspects)). The physical violence suffered by the applicant was recorded in forensic and police records. At the investigation stages and in courts, domestic authorities considered acts of domestic violence as provoked and therefore not serious enough to be classified as criminal law. The essence of the case was the issue of impunity for acts of domestic violence. The applicant fully utilized the remedy provided for in the criminal procedure, but the Romanian authorities, although aware of her situation, did not take appropriate measures to punish the perpetrator and prevent further attacks.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.

 

Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention. Evasion of the state from the protection of women from domestic violence violated their right to equal protection by law. Official statistics show that the majority of the Romanian population tolerated domestic violence and even considered it to be normal and that a relatively small number of registered incidents were accompanied by a criminal investigation. The number of victims of domestic violence increased year by year, and a large majority of victims were women. These considerations were consistent with the earlier conclusions of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. 35th session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, concluding observations on Romania, CEDAW / C / ROM / CO / 6, 15 May-2 June 2006. The domestic authorities were well aware that the applicant was constantly abused side of her husband. They deprived the national legal base of the goal, indicating that the applicant herself provoked domestic violence and that violence did not pose a threat to society, and therefore was not serious enough to demand the imposition of criminal sanctions. At the same time, they acted in a way that clearly does not comply with international standards on violence against women and domestic violence, in particular (see, for example, the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention). in this case was also evident in view of their failure to consider protective measures for the applicant, despite her repeated appeals to the police, to the prosecutor and to the courts. "In view of the special vulnerability of victims of domestic violence, The violence to which the applicant was subjected could be considered gender-based violence, which is a form of discrimination against women Despite the adoption of the law by the authorities of the respondent State and the national strategy to prevent and combat domestic violence, the general immunity of the judiciary and the impunity of the aggressors, as established in the present case, showed that there is insufficient activity to take measures to combat domestic violence eat. The criminal legal system in force in the case did not have an adequate deterrent effect that could effectively prevent the applicant's husband's illegal actions against the applicant's personal integrity.

 


DECISION

 


In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention (unanimously adopted).

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant 9,800 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/431-balsan-v-romania .

 

 

Rozsudok Európskeho súdu pre ľudské práva z 23. mája 2017 vo veci Paluda proti Slovensku (sťažnosť č. 33392/12).

 

V roku 2012 bola žalobcovi pomáhať pri príprave sťažnosti. Následne bola sťažnosť oznámená na Slovensku.

 

V tomto prípade bola úspešne posúdená sťažnosť o nemožnosti súdneho odvolania proti rozhodnutiu o pozastavení výkonu funkcie sudcu v čase začatia disciplinárneho konania začatého proti nemu. Bolo porušené článok 6 ods. 1 Dohovoru o ochrane ľudských práv a základných slobôd.

 

 

 

OKOLNOSTI PRÍPADU

 


V septembri 2009, súdna rada slovenských republiky (najvyšší riadiaci orgán súdneho komunity na slovenský, ktorý v tej dobe bol v čele s predsedom Najvyššieho súdu) rozhodol o odloženie výkonu povinností žiadateľa sudcov Najvyššieho súdu a ukázať mu disciplinárne obvinenia. Najmä sa tvrdilo, že žalobca obvinil hlavného sudcu zneužitie úradu a verejne vyjadril, že predseda sa pokúsil ovplyvniť výsledok konania. Pozastavenie, ktoré by podľa platného zákona mohlo trvať až dva roky, malo za následok zníženie peňažnej výživy žiadateľa o 50%. Pokusy žalobcu napadnúť toto pozastavenie nebolo úspešné. Jeho sťažnosť na Súdnu radu bola zamietnutá z dôvodu, že bola v kompetencii správnych súdov. Správne súdy rozhodli, že rozhodnutie pozastaviť žalobcu bolo predbežné, nepredstavovalo vymedzenie jeho práv s konečným účinkom a ako také neovplyvnilo jeho základné práva a slobody. Sťažnosti žalobcu na Ústavný súd boli vyhlásené za neprípustné. V konvenčnom konaní žalobca podľa článku 6 ods. 1 Dohovoru sťažoval, že mu bol zamietnutý prístup k súdu s cieľom napadnúť príkaz na pozastavenie výkonu jeho povinností.

 


OTÁZKY PRÁVA

 


Pozastavenie právomocí vo vzťahu k žiadateľovi bol zamestnaný u sudcovskej rady, orgánu, ktorý nemal súdne charakter a neposkytol pre inštitucionálnych a procesných záruk vyplývajúcich z článku 6 § 1 Dohovoru, v rámci disciplinárneho konania, ktoré ustanovil súdnej rady. Žiadateľ nebol vypočutý v súvislosti s pozastavením alebo súvisiacimi disciplinárnymi poplatkami.

 

Žiadateľ nemal prístup k riadeniu na súde v zmysle článku 6 ods 1 Dohovoru napadnúť suspenzie, ktorá po dobu dvoch rokov znemožnil vykonať súdnu povinnosti a spôsobila polovicu svojho podielu platov a zároveň je nemožné získať akýkoľvek iný príjem. Orgány žalovaného štátu neodkázali na žiadny dôvod, ktorý by zbavil žalobcu súdnej ochrany v súvislosti s týmto opatrením. V tomto ohľade bolo dôležité, aby sa jasne rozlišovať medzi donucovacie preukázateľne spôsobuje pozastavenie povinností sudcu, proti ktorému disciplinárne stíhanie predložila určitý druh, a dôvody, prečo za to, že mu umožní prístup k súdu v súvislosti s podmienečným oslobodením. Podľa Súdneho dvora sa význam tohto rozdielu bola doplnená o tom, že úrad používať opatrenia a postup, ktorý bol použitý, nespĺňa požiadavky článku 6 § 1 Dohovoru, ako aj skutočnosť, že opatrenia bola použitá v tejto súvislosti ako v prípad žiadateľa. Zamietnutie prístupu súdu žalobcom teda nemôže byť primerané žiadnemu legitímnemu sledovanému cieľu. V dôsledku toho sa zmenšila samotná podstata jeho práva na prístup k spravodlivosti.

 


rozhodnutie

 


Porušenie požiadaviek článku 6 ods. 1 dohovoru (jednomyseľne) bolo spáchané.

 


VYROVNANIE

 


Pri uplatňovaní článku 41 Dohovoru. Súd udelil žalobcovi náhradu nemajetkovej ujmy vo výške 7 800 eur, nárok na majetkovú ujmu bol zamietnutý.

 

 

 

Zdroj publikácie: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/432-paluda-proti-slovensku .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECtHR judgment of 23 May 2017 in the case of Paluda v. Slovakia (application No. 33392/12).

 

In 2012, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Slovakia.

 

In the case, the complaint on the impossibility of a judicial appeal against the decision to suspend the performance of the judge's duties for the time of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him was successfully considered. There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


In September 2009, the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic (the supreme governing body of the judiciary in Slovakia, which at that time was headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) decided to suspend the applicant's discharge of the duties of a judge of the Supreme Court and bring him disciplinary charges. In particular, it was alleged that the applicant accused the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of abuse of office and publicly expressed that the chairman was trying to influence the outcome of the proceedings. The suspension, which under applicable law could last up to two years, entailed a 50 per cent reduction in the applicant's pecuniary maintenance. The applicant's attempts to challenge this suspension were unsuccessful. His complaint to the Judicial Council was dismissed on the grounds that it was within the competence of administrative courts. The administrative courts ruled that the decision to suspend the applicant was preliminary, did not constitute a definition of his rights with a final effect and as such did not affect his fundamental rights and freedoms. The applicant's complaints to the Constitutional Court were declared inadmissible. In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was denied access to the court to challenge the order to suspend the performance of his duties.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


The suspension of the applicant's authority was applied by the Judicial Council, a body that was not judicial in nature and did not provide for the institutional and procedural safeguards inherent in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the context of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Judicial Council. The applicant was not heard in relation to the suspension or related disciplinary charges.

 

The applicant did not have access to proceedings in the court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in order to challenge the suspension, which for two years made it impossible for him to discharge his judicial duties and caused retention of half of his pay, while at the same time it was impossible to obtain any other income. The authorities of the respondent state did not refer to any reason that deprived the applicant of judicial protection in respect of this measure. In this respect, it was important to make a clear distinction between the provocatively compelling reasons for the suspension of the duties of the judge against whom a certain type of disciplinary charge was raised and the reasons preventing him from accessing the court in connection with this suspension. In the Court's opinion, the importance of this distinction was supplemented by the fact that the body that used the measure and the procedure during which it was applied did not meet the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and also the fact that the measure was applied in a context such as the applicant's case. Consequently, the applicant's denial of access to the court could not be proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued. Accordingly, the very essence of his right to access to justice was diminished.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the claim for pecuniary damage was rejected.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/433-paluda-v-slovakia .