Новости от 29 июля 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 22 февраля 2018 года по делу "Малыгин и другие (Malygin and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы NN 55427/13, 61460/15, 77902/16, 77915/16, 78118/16, 79616/16 и 3482/17).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток) в отношении всех заявителей, требование статьи 13 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
В 2013, 2015, 2016 и 2017 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 жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.
22 февраля 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 51 900 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда. Заявителям были присуждены различные суммы от 5 000 до 15 000 евро.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/516-malygin-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
Judgment of the ECHR of 22 February 2018 in the case of Malygin and Others v. Russia (applications NN 55427/13, 61460/15, 77902/16, 77915/16, 78118/16, 79616/16 and 3482 / 17).
The applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered in the case. The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017, 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 applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.
On 22 February 2018, on the basis of 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 51,900 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,000 to 15,000 euros.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/517-malygin-and-others-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 22 февраля 2018 по делу "Попов и другие (Popov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 33361/16, 34396/16, 38199/16, 38411/16, 38485/16, 39313/16 и 39443/16).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они 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 2016 году 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 жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.
22 февраля 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 48 100 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/518-popov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 22 February 2018 in the case of Popov and Others v. Russia (applications no. 33361/16, 34396/16, 38199/16, 38411/16, 38485/16, 39313/16 and 39443 / 16).
In the case, the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, some of the applicants also complained 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 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 applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.
On 22 February 2018, on the basis of 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 48,100 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/519-popov-and-others-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 22 февраля 2018 года по делу "Смирнов и другие (Smirnov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 17883/16, 19624/16, 21838/16, 22411/16, 42277/16, 46855/16, 64466/16, 65233/16, 2224/17 и 4208/17).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они 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 2016 и 2017 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
В своих жалобах заявители (10 человек) жаловались на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. Отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.
22 февраля 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 50 800 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/520-smirnov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of February 22, 2018 in the case of Smirnov and Others v. Russia (applications no. 17883/16, 19624/16, 21838/16, 22411/16, 42277/16, 46855/16, 64466 / 16, 65233/16, 2224/17 and 4208/17).
In the case, the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, some of the applicants also complained 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 2016 and 2017, 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 (10 persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Individual applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.
On 22 February 2018, on the basis of 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 50,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/521-smirnov-and-others-v-russia-2 .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 22 февраля 2018 года по делу "Яковлев и другие (Yakovlev and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 64119/13, 53696/16, 79163/16, 13362/17, 16305/17, 18289/17 и 18877/17).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они 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 2013, 2016 и 2017 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 жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.
22 февраля 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 45 800 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/522-yakovlev-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 22 February 2018 in the case "Yakovlev and Others" v. Russian Federation "( applications N 64119/13, 53696/16, 79163/16, 13362/17, 16305/17, 18289/17 and 18877 / 17).
In the case, the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, some of the applicants also complained 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 2013, 2016 and 2017, 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 applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.
On 22 February 2018, on the basis of 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 45,800 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/523-yakovlev-and-others-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 22 февраля 2018 года по делу "Логинов и другие (Loginov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 14925/16, 21849/16, 33535/16, 52089/16, 53618/16, 1335/17 и 1869/17).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении всех заявителей.
В 2016 и 2017 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.
22 февраля 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, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 39 400 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/524-loginov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 22 February 2018 in the case of Loginov and Others v. The Russian Federation (applications Nos. 14925/16, 21849/16, 33535/16, 52089/16, 53618/16, 1335/17 and 1869 / 17).
The applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered in the case. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in respect of all applicants.
In 2016 and 2017, 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.
On 22 February 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously found that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all the applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 39,400 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/525-loginov-and-others-v-russia .
Arrêt de la CEDH du 06 avril 2017 dans l'affaire A.P., Garcón et Nicot c. France (requête n ° 79885/12 et autres).
En 2012, les requérants ont été assistés dans la préparation de la requête. Par la suite, la requête a été communiquée à la France.
Dans le cas, la plainte aux exigences de la loi, qui sont nécessaires pour corriger l'état civil des personnes transgenres, a été considérée avec succès. En cas de violation des exigences de l'art. 8 de la Convention de sauvegarde des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés fondamentales; sur les exigences de l'art. 8 de la Convention de sauvegarde des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés fondamentales n'ont pas été violés.
Les circonstances de l'affaire
Les requérants dans l'affaire sont des personnes transgenres. En 2007-2009, ils ont interjeté appel devant les tribunaux de France pour changer les registres de leurs actes de naissance concernant le sexe et le nom. Tous les tribunaux ont rejeté leurs demandes, au motif que les requérants n'avaient pas prouvé qu'ils avaient subi l'intervention médicale et chirurgicale nécessaire ayant entraîné un changement de sexe irréversible. Dans l'affaire du second requérant, les tribunaux ont également estimé qu'il n'avait pas été prouvé qu'il avait effectivement souffert d'un trouble d'identité de genre approprié. Dans l'affaire du premier requérant, le tribunal attachait une importance particulière au fait qu'il refusait de subir un examen médical pour confirmer que l'opération de changement de sexe avait effectivement eu lieu. L'enquête a été ordonnée au motif que les preuves qui leur ont été présentées étaient insuffisantes.
En 2012 et 2013, la Cour de cassation française a rejeté le recours des requérants. À la Cour européenne, ils se sont plaints que ces conditions (découlant de la législation en vigueur à l'époque) violaient leur droit au respect de leur vie privée ou étaient dégradantes.
Problèmes juridiques
Concernant le respect de l'article 8 de la Convention. La Cour estime que les plaintes devraient être examinées en fonction des obligations positives de l'Etat défendeur de garantir le respect de la vie privée.
a) La condition que les changements d'apparence (personnes) soient irréversibles (deuxième et troisième requérants). Au-delà de la formulation juridique officielle regrettable d'incertitude (l'exigence de changement d'aspect irréversible), le droit positif français met vraiment la reconnaissance de l'identité de genre des personnes transgenres qui dépendent du passage des opérations de stérilisation ou la thérapie, qui, par sa nature et l'intensité a attiré une probabilité extrêmement élevée de la stérilisation.
(i) Liberté de discrétion de l'État. Bien que parmi les États membres, il n'y a pas de consensus sur les critères de stérilité et l'espèce n'affecte l'intérêt public, les éléments suivants ont amené la Cour à conclure que l'Etat défendeur avait seulement une marge d'appréciation étroite à cet égard:
- la base de ces plaintes sont les aspects clés de l'identité intime de la personne et même son existence: d'une part, l'intégrité physique (étant donné qu'il était question de la stérilisation), d'autre part, l'identité sexuelle;
- En outre, la disposition controversée a été retirée du droit positif de 11 États participants, y compris la France, en 2009 - 2016 et des réformes similaires sont en cours de discussion dans d'autres États participants. Ceci indique qu'au cours des dernières années il y a eu une tendance en Europe sous la forme d'un rejet de ce critère, basé sur un changement dans la compréhension de la transgenre;
- un certain nombre d'acteurs institutionnels européens et internationaux dans le domaine de la promotion et la protection des droits de l'homme a soutenu explicitement le rejet du critère de stérilité avant ou en même temps que les décisions de la Cour de cassation en l'espèce.
(ii) Comparaison d'intérêts concurrents. En effet, garantir le principe de l'inaliénabilité de l'état civil, garantir la fiabilité et le caractère unique de l'état civil et, plus généralement, assurer la sécurité juridique étaient des questions d'intérêt public.
Cependant, la loi positif français au moment de mettre devant les parties prenantes dilemme insoluble: soit ils subissent une chirurgie ou un traitement Entraînant stérilisées contre leur gré et, ce faisant, renoncer à la pleine mise en œuvre du droit au respect de leur intégrité physique, ou ils refusent de reconnaître leur sexuelle et donc de la pleine jouissance du même droit, c'est-à-dire, en général, le droit au respect de la vie privée, dont un aspect est le droit au respect de la vie physique. inviolabilité. Selon la Cour, la dépendance de la reconnaissance de l'identité sexuelle des personnes transgenres à subir une intervention chirurgicale ou un traitement impliquant la stérilisation, ou sont plus susceptibles d'avoir une telle conséquence, contre leur volonté est égale à la dépendance de la réalisation totale du droit au respect de la vie privée en vertu de l'article 8 de la Convention en refusant du plein exercice de son droit à l'intégrité physique, garanti non seulement par cette disposition, mais aussi par l'article 3 de la Convention.
Par conséquent, il n'y avait pas de juste équilibre qui aurait dû être établi entre les intérêts publics et les intérêts de la personne.
Résolution
L'affaire impliquait une violation des exigences de l'article 8 de la Convention (adopté par six voix "pour" avec un - "contre").
(b) La condition pour le diagnostic d'un trouble de l'identité sexuelle (deuxième demandeur). Le demandeur a soutenu que la transgenderité n'était pas une maladie et que l'approche de l'identification sexuelle en tant que conséquence de pathologies psychologiques ou médicales était un facteur de stigmatisation. Ce point de vue a également été exprimé en 2013 par la Commission nationale consultative des droits de l'homme (CNCDH).
(i) Liberté de discrétion de l'État. Bien qu'il est venu à un aspect important de l'identité des personnes transgenres, comme elle a été affectée par la reconnaissance de leur sexe, les éléments suivants ont amené la Cour à conclure que les États parties conservent une grande marge d'appréciation pour décider d'appliquer ou non la condition de la présence préalable du diagnostic psychologique:
- il y avait une position presque unanime sur ce point parmi les Etats participants dans lesquels il était possible de reconnaître légalement le genre des personnes transgenres;
- transsexualité est inclus dans le chapitre 5, « Les troubles mentaux et du comportement » Classification internationale des maladies publiée par l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (ICC-10, N F64.0);
- Contrairement à la condition de stérilité, l'obligation de diagnostic psychologique ne remet pas directement en cause l'intégrité physique de la personne;
- comme une considération secondaire, il ne semble pas que les acteurs européens et internationaux opérant dans le domaine de la promotion et la protection des droits de l'homme fondamentaux, prennent une position aussi forte sur ce point, tant en termes de conditions de stérilité.
(ii) Comparaison d'intérêts concurrents. la plus haute autorité sanitaire de la France a déclaré en 2009 que l'exigence pour le diagnostic de trouble de l'identité de genre fait partie de l'approche dite « diagnostic différentiel », destiné à fournir une assurance aux médecins des effets hormonaux ou chirurgicaux qui un patient souffrant n'est pas causée par d'autres raisons. À cet égard, cette exigence spécifique visait à protéger les intérêts des parties prenantes, en veillant à ce qu'elles ne commencent pas à modifier leur statut juridique pour des raisons erronées.
De plus, en ce point, le demandeur se recoupaient en partie l'intérêt public relatif à la protection du principe de l'inaliénabilité de l'état civil, la validité et le caractère unique du registre de l'état civil et la sécurité juridique des actes, étant donné que cette exigence a également contribué à la stabilité des amendements au champ d'enregistrement des actes registre état civil.
En présentant une base controversée pour rejeter la demande du requérant, l'Etat défendeur, compte tenu de sa large marge d'appréciation, a établi un juste équilibre entre des intérêts concurrents.
Résolution
Les exigences de l'article 8 de la Convention n'ont pas été violées (unanimité).
c) Obligation de subir un examen médical (premier requérant). Le requérant, qui a préféré subir une opération pour changer de sexe à l'étranger, a prétendu devant les juridictions internes qu'il avait ainsi rempli les conditions prévues par le droit matériel pour changer l'état civil. étude d'experts qui a été conçu controversé pour vérifier si cette déclaration été nommé en fait un juge dans le processus de collecte de preuves, qui est la zone dans laquelle la Cour prévoit que les États parties est très large marge d'appréciation. Rien n'a témoigné que cette décision était arbitraire. Le Code de procédure civile donnait aux tribunaux un pouvoir discrétionnaire illimité dans la désignation de mesures procédurales, y compris des examens médicaux, s'ils ne disposaient pas d'éléments de preuve suffisants pour prendre une décision. Le tribunal a indiqué clairement les raisons pour lesquelles il considérait que la preuve était insuffisante. En conséquence, il a nommé des experts de trois spécialisations différentes mais complémentaires, qui ont été chargées d'une tâche extrêmement détaillée. Par conséquent, même si cet examen médical impliquait un examen génital, le degré d'intervention aurait dû avoir une importance limitée. En soulevant le motif controversé du rejet de la demande du requérant, les autorités de l'Etat défendeur ont établi un juste équilibre entre des intérêts concurrents.
Résolution
Les exigences de l'article 8 de la Convention n'ont pas été violées (unanimité).
Compensation
En application de l'article 41 de la Convention. Le fait d'établir une violation constitue en soi une réparation équitable suffisante pour préjudice moral.
Source de publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/509-a-p-garcon-et-nicot-c-france .
ECHR judgment of 06 April 2017 in the case of A.P., Garcón and Nicot v. France (application No. 79885/12 and others).
In 2012, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to France.
In the case, the complaint to the requirements of the law, which are necessary to correct the civil status of transgender people, was successfully considered. In the case of violation of the requirements of Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; on the requirements of Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were not violated.
The circumstances of the case
The applicants in the case are transgender persons. In 2007-2009, they appealed to the courts of France to change the records in their birth certificates concerning gender and name. All courts rejected their claims, on the grounds that the applicants had not proved that they had undergone the necessary medical and surgical intervention that caused irreversible sex change. In the second applicant's case, the courts also held that it had not been proven that he had indeed suffered from an appropriate gender identity disorder. In the first applicant's case, the court attached particular importance to the fact that he refused to undergo a medical examination to confirm that the sex-change operation had actually been carried out. The survey was ordered on the grounds that the evidence presented to them was insufficient.
In 2012 and 2013, the French Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants' appeal. In the European Court, they complained that these conditions (arising from the legislation in force at the time) violated their right to respect for their private life or were degrading.
Law issues
Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. The Court considers that the complaints should be examined in terms of the positive obligations of the respondent State to guarantee respect for private life.
(a) The condition that changes in appearance (persons) be irreversible (second and third applicants). Going beyond the regrettable uncertainty of the official legislative formulation (the requirement of an irreversible change in appearance), French positive law did in fact recognize the gender of transgender people as a result of a sterilization operation or therapy, which in its nature and intensity attracted an extremely high probability of sterilization.
(i) Freedom of discretion of the State. Although there is no consensus among the Member States on the criteria for sterility and the present case does affect public interests, the following elements have led the Court to conclude that the respondent State had only a narrow margin of appreciation in this matter:
- at the heart of these complaints are the key aspects of the person's intimate identity and even his or her existence: on the one hand, physical integrity (given that it was about sterilization), on the other hand, gender;
- In addition, the controversial provision was removed from the positive law of 11 participating States, including France, in 2009 - 2016 and similar reforms are being discussed in other participating States. This indicates that in recent years there has been a trend in Europe in the form of a rejection of this criterion, based on a change in the understanding of transgenderity;
- a number of European and international institutional actors working in the field of promotion and protection of human rights unequivocally expressed their support in refusing the criterion of sterility before or simultaneously with the decisions of the Court of Cassation in the present case.
(ii) Comparison of competing interests. Indeed, ensuring the principle of inalienability of the civil status, guaranteeing the reliability and uniqueness of the civil status and, more generally, ensuring legal certainty were issues of public interest.
However, French positive law at the time posed an intractable dilemma to the stakeholders: either they undergo surgery or therapies that lead to sterilization, contrary to their own will and, while doing so, refuse to fully exercise their right to respect for their physical integrity, or they refuse to recognize their sexual and therefore from the full enjoyment of the same right, that is, in general, the right to respect for private life, one aspect of which is the right to respect for the physical inviolability. In the Court's view, the dependence of the recognition of the sex of transgender people on the operation or therapy that results in sterilization, or with the greatest likelihood of having such a result, against their will is equated with the dependence of the full exercise of the right to respect for private life, provided for in Article 8 of the Convention, from the full exercise of the person's right to physical integrity, guaranteed not only by this provision, but also by Article 3 of the Convention.
Consequently, there was no fair balance that should have been established between public interests and the interests of the person.
Resolution
The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (adopted by six votes "for" with one - "against").
(b) The condition for diagnosing a sexual identity disorder (second applicant). The applicant argued that transgenderity was not a disease and the approach to sexual identification as a consequence of psychological or medical pathologies was a factor of stigmatization. This view was also expressed in 2013 by the National Advisory Commission for Human Rights (Commission nationale consultative des droits de l'homme, CNCDH).
(i) Freedom of discretion of the State. Although the issue concerned an important aspect of the identity of transgender people, as the recognition of their gender was affected, the following elements led the Court to conclude that States parties retained wide margin of appreciation in deciding whether to apply the condition of pre-existing psychological diagnosis:
- there was almost unanimous position on this item among the participating States in which it was possible to legally recognize the gender of transgender people;
- transsexuality is included in Chapter 5, "Mental and Behavioral Disorders" of the International Classification of Diseases published by the World Health Organization (ICC-10, N F64.0);
- Unlike the condition of sterility, the obligation to undergo psychological diagnosis does not directly question the physical integrity of the person;
- as a secondary consideration, it does not appear that European and international actors working in the field of promotion and protection of fundamental human rights take an equally strong position on this point, as regards the condition of sterility.
(ii) Comparison of competing interests. The highest health authority in France said in 2009 that the requirement to diagnose a sexual identity disorder was part of an approach known as "differential diagnosis" designed to ensure doctors' confidence before hormonal or surgical treatment that the sufferings of the patient are not due to other causes. In this regard, this specific requirement was intended to protect the interests of stakeholders, ensuring that they did not begin the process of changing their legal status for erroneous reasons.
Moreover, in this paragraph the applicant's interests were partially overlapped by public interest related to the protection of the principle of the inalienability of the civil status, the authenticity and uniqueness of the register of acts of civil status and legal certainty, considering that this requirement also contributed to ensuring the stability of the changes to the entry on the field of the register of acts civil status.
By submitting a controversial basis for rejecting the applicant's claim, the respondent State, given its broad margin of appreciation, established a fair balance between competing interests.
Resolution
The requirements of Article 8 of the Convention were not violated (unanimously).
(c) Obligation to undergo a medical examination (first applicant). The applicant, who preferred to undergo an operation to change the sex abroad, claimed in domestic courts that he had thus fulfilled the conditions provided for by the substantive law to change the civil status. The controversial expert study, which was intended to verify whether this statement was true, was appointed by the judge in the process of collecting evidence, that is, in an area in which the European Court provides a very wide margin of appreciation to participating States. Nothing testified that this decision was arbitrary. The Civil Procedure Code provided the courts with unlimited discretion in the appointment of procedural measures, including medical examinations, if they did not have sufficient evidence to make a decision. The court pointed out clear reasons why he considered the evidence to be insufficient. As a result, he appointed experts of three different but complementary specializations, which were entrusted with an extremely detailed task. Therefore, even if this medical examination involved a genital examination, the degree of intervention should have been given limited importance. By raising the controversial basis for rejecting the applicant's claim, the respondent State authorities established a fair balance between competing interests.
Resolution
The requirements of Article 8 of the Convention were not violated (unanimously).
Compensation
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The fact of an establishment of a violation in itself is sufficient fair compensation for moral harm.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/510-a-p-garcon-and-nicot-v-france .
Διάταγμα της ΕΣΔΑ της 4ης Απριλίου 2017 στην υπόθεση Guzelyurtlu και άλλοι κατά Κύπρου και Τουρκίας (καταγγελία αριθ. 36925/07).
Το 2007, οι υποψήφιοι βοήθησαν στην προετοιμασία της καταγγελίας. Στη συνέχεια, η καταγγελία κοινοποιήθηκε στην Κύπρο και την Τουρκία.
Στην περίπτωση αυτή, εξετάστηκε επιτυχώς η καταγγελία για τη φοροδιαφυγή των αρχών της Τουρκίας και της Κύπρου από τη συνεργασία για τη διερεύνηση της δολοφονίας. Υπήρξαν παραβιάσεις του άρθρου 2 της Σύμβασης για την Προστασία των Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων και των Θεμελιωδών Ελευθεριών.
Επί της περιπτώσεως
Οι αιτούντες είναι στενοί συγγενείς τριών Κυπρίων πολιτών της Τουρκίας που βρέθηκαν νεκροί με τραύματα από σφαίρες στη νήσο που ελέγχονταν από την κυβέρνηση της Κύπρου το 2005. Οι κυπριακές και τουρκικές αρχές (συμπεριλαμβανομένης της «ΤΔΒΚ») (δηλαδή η λεγόμενη Τουρκική Δημοκρατία της Βόρειας Κύπρου) ξεκίνησαν αμέσως έρευνα. Ωστόσο, αν και οι αρχές Κύπρος έχει καθιερωθεί, και οι αρχές «ΤΔΒΚ» υπό κράτηση και ανακρίθηκαν οκτώ υπόπτων, δύο έρευνες βρίσκονταν σε αδιέξοδο, και η υπόθεση αναβλήθηκε προσωρινά έως ότου οι νέες συνθήκες. Αν και οι υποθέσεις δεν τερματίστηκαν, μετά το 2008 δεν υπήρξαν γεγονότα. Οι τουρκικές αρχές συνέχισαν να περιμένουν τα αποδεικτικά στοιχεία που θα επιτρέψουν την καταδίκη των υπόπτων, ενώ η κυπριακή έρευνα έπαψε να καθυστερεί αφού η Τουρκία επέστρεψε αιτήσεις έκδοσης από τις κυπριακές αρχές. Τα μέτρα που λαμβάνονται ως αποτέλεσμα της διαμεσολάβησης για την ειρηνευτική δύναμη των Ηνωμένων Εθνών Κύπρος (στο εξής - ΟΥΝΦΙΚΥΠ), αποδείχθηκε άχρηστη ενόψει του γεγονότος ότι οι κρατικές αρχές εναγόμενο επέμειναν στις θέσεις τους.
Οι εργασίες της Συνέλευσης, οι προσφεύγοντες παραπονούνται σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 2 της Σύμβασης από τις αρχές της η Κύπρος και η Τουρκία για την αποτυχία να διεξαγάγει αποτελεσματική έρευνα για το θάνατο των ανθρώπων, και να συνεργαστούν στην έρευνα.
ΖΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΝΟΜΟΥ
Όσον αφορά τη συμμόρφωση με το άρθρο 2 της Σύμβασης (διαδικαστική πτυχή). Από το θάνατο των συγγενών των εναγόντων έλαβε χώρα στην περιοχή που ελέγχεται από τη Δημοκρατία της Κύπρος και υπάγονται στη δικαιοδοσία του κράτους, υπήρξε μια διαδικαστική υποχρέωση Κύπρος να ερευνήσει το θάνατο των ανθρώπων. Η διαδικαστική υποχρέωση της Τουρκίας να υπάρχουν επίσης ως ύποπτοι για τη δολοφονία ανήκε στην τουρκική δικαιοδοσία, «ΤΔΒΚ» ή την ηπειρωτική Τουρκία, και οι τουρκικές αρχές και «η ΤΔΒΚ» κοινοποιήθηκαν του αδικήματος, και έχουν δημοσιοποιηθεί «κόκκινη ειδοποίηση» για τον ύποπτο (δηλαδή τα αιτήματα της Ιντερπόλ για κράτηση ατόμων υπό διεθνή έρευνα). Πράγματι, οι αρχές της "ΤΔΒΚ" ξεκίνησαν τη δική τους ποινική έρευνα και τα δικαστήρια τους είχαν δικαιοδοσία για τους δράστες εγκλημάτων στη νήσο της Κύπρου.
αιτίαση των προσφευγουσών σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 2 της σύμβασης σχετικά με τη διεξαγωγή των ερευνών από τις αρχές της η Κύπρος και η Τουρκία και οι εξουσίες αποφυγή ερωτώμενος μέλη να συνεργάζονται μεταξύ τους.
α) Διενέργεια ερευνών. Και τα δύο κράτη που απάντησαν διεξήγαγαν χωρίς καθυστέρηση ένα μεγάλο αριθμό μέτρων έρευνας. Το Συνέδριο δεν διαπίστωσε στις ενέργειές του ελλείψεις που θα μπορούσαν να θέσουν υπό αμφισβήτηση τη συνολική επάρκεια των ερευνών αυτών καθεαυτών. Εντούτοις, δεν υπήρχε λόγος να συναχθεί, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 2 της Σύμβασης για το θέμα αυτό, τα συμπεράσματα του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου σχετικά με τη συνεργασία μεταξύ των δύο κρατών.
β) Η διαδικαστική υποχρέωση συνεργασίας. Υπό τις συνθήκες αυτές, όπως στην προκειμένη περίπτωση, όταν η έρευνα δολοφονίας επηρεάσει αναπόφευκτα περισσότερα από ένα κράτος, αυτό συνεπάγεται μια δέσμευση από τις αρχές του καθού κράτους να συνεργάζονται αποτελεσματικά και να λαμβάνουν όλα τα απαραίτητα μέτρα για το σκοπό αυτό, προκειμένου να διευκολυνθεί και να εφαρμόσει μια αποτελεσματική έρευνα για την όλη υπόθεση. Η υποχρέωση αυτή ήταν να διατηρηθεί η αποτελεσματική προστασία του δικαιώματος στη ζωή σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 2 της Σύμβασης, και συμφώνησε με τη θέση των σχετικών εγγράφων του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης, οι οποίες προβλέπουν διακυβερνητική συνεργασία με σκοπό την καλύτερη πρόληψη και την καταπολέμηση του διασυνοριακού εγκλήματος και την τιμωρία των δραστών. Η φύση και η έκταση της απαιτούμενης συνεργασίας εξαρτώνται αναπόφευκτα από τις συνθήκες της συγκεκριμένης περίπτωσης. Το Δικαστήριο δεν είναι αρμόδιο να καθορίσει αν η κυβέρνηση των υποχρεώσεών του ερωτώμενου μέλη συμμορφώνονται σύμφωνα με την Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση για την έκδοση και την Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση για την αμοιβαία δικαστική συνδρομή σε ποινικές υποθέσεις, και δεν θα πρέπει να προσδιορίζει ποια μέτρα οι αρχές είχαν λάβει για να εναγομένων Κρατών συμμορφωθούν τις υποχρεώσεις τους με τον πιο αποτελεσματικό τρόπο. Το καθήκον του Συνεδρίου ήταν να πιστοποιήσει ότι τα ληφθέντα μέτρα ήταν κατάλληλα και επαρκή σε τέτοιες περιπτώσεις και για να προσδιοριστεί σε ποιο βαθμό ήταν δυνατή και έπρεπε να ληφθεί η ελάχιστη δυνατή προσπάθεια.
Από το υλικό που παρέχεται από το Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της έκθεσης του Γενικού Γραμματέα των Ηνωμένων Εθνών στις 27 Μαΐου 2005 σχετικά με την επιχείρηση των Ηνωμένων Εθνών στην Κύπρος, προκύπτει ότι ο εναγόμενος μέλη δεν είναι έτοιμοι να συμβιβαστούν και να αναζητήσουν την κατανόηση. Η θέση αυτή βασίστηκε σε πολιτικούς λόγους που αντανακλούν τη μακρά και τεταμένη πολιτική διαμάχη μεταξύ της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας και της Τουρκίας. Αν και τα κράτη που απάντησαν είχαν την ευκαιρία να βρουν λύση και να καταλήξουν σε συμφωνία με τη μεσολάβηση της UNFICYP, δεν αξιοποίησαν αυτή την ευκαιρία. Οποιεσδήποτε προτάσεις, όπως η συνάντηση σε ουδέτερο έδαφος μεταξύ των αστυνομικών αρχών, οι ύποπτοι ανακρίνονται από μια «μέθοδο ανάκρισης βιντεοταινία» στη νεκρή ζώνη των Ηνωμένων Εθνών, η δυνατότητα διοργάνωσης από το δικαστήριο ad hoc σε ουδέτερο έδαφος, η ανταλλαγή των στοιχείων και την εξέταση του επιπέδου των τεχνικών υπηρεσιών, οι οποίες έγιναν με με σκοπό την εξεύρεση συμβιβαστικής λύσης, αντιμετώπισαν μια ειλικρινή άρνηση των αρχών. Παρόλο που έχουν δημιουργηθεί αρκετές ομάδες εργασίας και τεχνικές επιτροπές σε επίπεδο Κοινότητας, φαίνεται ότι κανείς δεν έχει εξετάσει την υπόθεση για να προωθήσει την έρευνα.
Ως αποτέλεσμα της αποφυγής των κρατών που απάντησαν από τη συνεργασία, οι αντίστοιχες έρευνές τους δεν έχουν προχωρήσει και τίποτα δεν έχει γίνει για περισσότερο από οκτώ χρόνια. Ο χρόνος του παρελθόντος επηρέασε αναπόφευκτα την ποσότητα και την ποιότητα των διαθέσιμων στοιχείων και επιδείνωσε τις πιθανότητες ολοκλήρωσης της έρευνας. Παράπεμψε επίσης τα βάσανα των μελών της οικογένειας.
Επί του παρόντος, συλλέγονται πολλά αποδεικτικά στοιχεία, εντοπίζονται και κρατούνται οκτώ υπόπτους. Η αποφυγή της άμεσης συνεργασίας ή της διαμεσολάβησης της UNFICYP συνεπάγεται την απελευθέρωσή τους. Αν συνεργασίας πραγματοποιήθηκε σύμφωνα με τη διαδικαστική υποχρέωση που απορρέει από το άρθρο 2 της Σύμβασης, ποινική δίωξη μπορεί να ασκηθεί εναντίον ενός ή περισσοτέρων υπόπτων ή έρευνα θα μπορούσε να έρθει στην κατάλληλη συμπέρασμα.
ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ
Σε περίπτωση παραβίασης του άρθρου 2 της Σύμβασης από τις τουρκικές αρχές (ομόφωνα), υπήρξε παραβίαση του άρθρου 2 της Σύμβασης από τις αρχές της Κύπρος (υιοθετήθηκε από πέντε ψήφους «υπέρ» δύο - «έναντι»).
ΑΠΟΖΗΜΙΩΣΗ
Κατά την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 41 της Σύμβασης. Το Δικαστήριο χορήγησε σε κάθε αιτούντα 8.500 ευρώ για ηθική βλάβη.
Πηγή δημοσίευσης: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/511-guzelyurtlu-and-others-vv-cyprus-and-turkey .
Güzelyurtlu ve Diğerleri / Kıbrıs ve Türkiye davasında 04 Nisan 2017 tarihli AİHS Kararı (şikayet no 36925/07).
2007 yılında, başvuranlar şikâyetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Kıbrıs ve Türkiye'ye iletildi.
Durumda, Türkiye ve Kıbrıs makamlarının cinayetin soruşturulmasında işbirliğinden duyduğu şikayet başarılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunması Sözleşmesi'nin 2. Maddesi ihlal edilmiştir.
OLAYIN DURUMU
Başvuranlar, 2005 yılında Kıbrıs Hükümeti tarafından kontrol edilen adada mermi yaralarıyla ölü bulunan üç Türk kökenli Türk vatandaşının yakın akrabalarıdır. Kıbrıs ve Türk makamları ("KKTC" de dahil) (Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti), derhal bir soruşturma başlattı. Ancak, her ne kadar Kıbrıs makamları kurulmuştur ve yetkililer "KKTC" gözaltına sekiz şüpheliyi sorguya, iki soruşturma kör bir noktada olduğumuzu ve dava geçici olarak yeni koşullara kadar askıya alınmıştır. Davalar sonlandırılmamış olsa da, 2008'den sonra hiçbir olay yoktu. Türkiye'nin talebi Kıbrıs makamlarının konusuna dönmek sonra Kıbrıslı soruşturma durdu iken Türk yetkililer, şüphelilerin mahkum olur kanıtları beklemek devam etti. Kıbrıs BM barış gücüne arabuluculuk sonucunda alınan önlemler (bundan - UNFICYP), davalı Devlet yetkilileri pozisyonları ısrarla gerçeği göz önüne yararsız kanıtladı.
Sözleşmenin işlemler başvuranlar kişinin ölümüne yönelik etkili soruşturma ve soruşturma işbirliği başarısızlık de Kıbrıs ve Türkiye'nin makamları tarafından Sözleşme'nin 2. maddesi gereğince şikayet etti.
HUKUK SORUNLARI
Sözleşmenin 2. Maddesi ile uyum konusunda (usul yönleri). başvuranların yakınlarının ölümü Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti tarafından ve Devletin egemenliği altında bulunmayan kontrolü altındaki topraklarda gerçekleşti beri, insanların ölümünü araştırmak üzere Kıbrıs'a bir usul zorunluluğu yoktu. cinayetinde zanlılar Türk yargı, "KKTC" veya anakara Türkiye'ye aitti olarak Türkiye'nin usul yükümlülüğü de var ve Türk yetkililer ve "KKTC" suç haberdar edildi ve şüpheli hakkında "kırmızı bülten" yayınlanmıştır (İnterpol isteklerini anlam uluslararası arama altındaki kişileri gözaltına almak). Gerçekten de, "KKTC" nin gücü kendi adli soruşturma başlatılmış ve mahkemeler Kıbrıs adasında taahhüt suç olan kişiler üzerinde yargı yetkisine sahiptir.
Kıbrıs ile Türkiye ve kaçınma güçler davalı Devletlerin makamları tarafından soruşturma yürütülmesine ilişkin AİHS'nin 2. Maddesinin, başvuranların şikayetleri birbirleriyle işbirliği yapmak.
(a) Araştırmaları yürütmek. Her iki sorumlu ülke de gecikmeden çok sayıda soruşturma tedbiri gerçekleştirmiştir. Mahkeme, bu gibi soruşturmaların genel yeterliliğini sorgulayabilecek eylem eksikliklerini bulamadı. Ancak, iki ülke arasındaki işbirliği Mahkemenin sonuçlarının ışığında bu konuda AİHS'nin 2. uyarınca sonuçlandırmak için gerek yoktu.
(b) İşbirliğinin usul yükümlülüğü. durumlarda, bu durumda olduğu gibi, zaman cinayet soruşturması kaçınılmaz olarak etkili bir işbirliği ve kolaylaştırmak ve bütün halinde ilgili etkili bir soruşturma uygulamak için, bu amaçla gerekli tüm tedbirleri almaya, sorumlu Devlet makamları tarafından bir taahhüt gerektirdiği birden fazla durumunu etkiler. Bu zorunluluk AİHS'nin 2. maddesinde yer alan yaşam hakkının etkili biçimde korunmasını sağlamak için, ve daha iyi önlemek ve ulus ötesi suçlarla mücadele ve failleri cezalandırmak için hükümetlerarası işbirliği için sağlayacağı alakalı Avrupa Konseyi belgelerin duruştan. Gerekli işbirliğinin niteliği ve kapsamı, kaçınılmaz olarak, özel davanın koşullarına bağlıdır. Mahkeme yükümlülüklerini davalı Devletler hükümeti İadesine Avrupa Konvansiyonu ve Cezai Konularda Karşılıklı Adli Yardımlaşma Avrupa Sözleşmesi uyarınca uygun olup olmadığının tespiti yetkisi olmadığı ve bu yetkililer Devletler uymak davalı almıştı unsurları ölçer belirtmemelidir yükümlülüklerini en etkin şekilde Mahkemenin görevi, alınan önlemlerin bu tür durumlarda uygun ve yeterli olduğunu ve asgari çabanın mümkün olup olmadığını ve ne ölçüde alındığını belirlemeyi onaylamaktı.
Kıbrıs'taki Birleşmiş Milletler operasyon 27 Mayıs 2005 tarihinde BM Genel Sekreteri raporu dahil Mahkemesi tarafından sağlanan malzemeler, itibaren, davalı Devletler uzlaşma ve anlayış aramaya hazır olmadıklarını izler. Bu pozisyon, Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti ve Türkiye arasındaki uzun ve gergin siyasi anlaşmazlığı yansıtan politik düşüncelere dayanıyordu. Davalı devletlerin bir çözüm bulma ve UNFICYP'nin aracılık ettiği bir anlaşmaya varmalarına rağmen, bu fırsatı kullanmadılar. Böyle polis yetkilileri arasında nötr topraklarında toplantı olarak herhangi bir öneriniz, BM tampon bölgesinde bir "sorgulama video kaset yöntemi" tarafından sorguya şüphelilerin tarafsız bölgede mahkemeyi geçici organize olasılığı ile yapıldı teknik hizmetler düzeyinde kanıt alışverişi ve göz uzlaşma çözümünün bulunması maksadı, yetkililer tarafından açık bir şekilde reddedildi. Bazı topluluklar arası çalışma grupları ve teknik komiteler oluşturulmasına rağmen, hiç kimse soruşturmayı ilerletmek için davaya bakmamıştır.
Davalı Devletlerin işbirliğinden kaçırılması sonucunda, kendi soruşturmaları ilerlememiş ve sekiz yıldan fazla bir süredir hiçbir şey yapılmamıştır. Geçmiş zaman kaçınılmaz olarak mevcut kanıtların miktarını ve kalitesini etkiledi ve araştırmayı tamamlama şansını daha da kötüleştirdi. Ayrıca aile üyelerinin acılarını uzattı.
Şu anda birçok kanıt toplanmış, sekiz şüpheli tespit edilmiş, tespit edilmiş ve gözaltına alınmıştır. Doğrudan işbirliğinden ya da UNFICYP arabuluculuğundan kaçınma, onların serbest bırakılmasını gerektirdi. İşbirliği, Sözleşme'nin 2. maddesi kapsamındaki usuli yükümlülüğe uygun olarak gerçekleşmişse, bir veya daha fazla şüpheliye karşı cezai takibat başlatılabilir veya soruşturma uygun bir sonuca varabilir.
KARAR
Türk makamları (oybirliğiyle) tarafından AİHS'nin 2. maddesinin ihlal edilmesi halinde, Kıbrıs makamları tarafından AİHS'nin 2. maddesinin ihlal edildiği (- "karşı" iki "için" beş oy ile kabul).
TAZMİNAT
Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. Mahkeme, her başvurana manevi tazminat olarak 8.500 Euro vermiştir.
Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/512-guzelyurtlu-ve-digerleri-kibris-ve-turkiye .
ECHR Ordinance of 04 April 2017 in the case of Guzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey (application No. 36925/07).
In 2007, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Cyprus and Turkey.
In the case, the complaint on the evasion of the authorities of Turkey and Cyprus from cooperation in the investigation of the murder was successfully considered. There have been violations of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants are close relatives of three Cypriot citizens of Turkish origin who were found dead with bullet wounds on the island controlled by the Government of Cyprus in 2005. The Cypriot and Turkish authorities (including the "TRNC") (meaning the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) immediately launched an investigation. However, although the Cypriot authorities were installed, and the authorities of the TRNC detained and questioned eight suspects, both investigations reached an impasse, and the cases were temporarily suspended until new circumstances appeared. Although the cases were not terminated, after 2008 there were no events. The Turkish authorities continued to await the evidence that would allow the conviction of the suspects, while the Cyprus investigation stalled after Turkey returned requests for extradition by the Cypriot authorities. Measures taken as a result of the mediation of UN peacekeeping forces in Cyprus (hereinafter UNFICYP) proved useless due to the fact that the authorities of the respondent states insisted on their positions.
In the conventional proceedings, the applicants complained of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention by the authorities of Cyprus and Turkey in connection with the inability to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths and cooperate in the course of the investigation.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 2 of the Convention (procedural aspect). Since the death of the applicants' relatives occurred on the territory controlled by the Republic of Cyprus and under the jurisdiction of that State, a procedural obligation of Cyprus to investigate the death of people arose. Turkey's procedural obligation also existed, since the suspects in the murder were in Turkish jurisdiction, in the "TRNC" or mainland Turkey, and the authorities of Turkey and "TRNC" were notified of the crime, and "red notices" regarding the suspects (referring to Interpol's requests to detain persons under international search). Indeed, the authorities of the "TRNC" began their own criminal investigation, and their courts had jurisdiction over the perpetrators of crimes on the island of Cyprus.
The applicants' complaint under Article 2 of the Convention concerned the conduct of the relevant investigations by the authorities of Cyprus and Turkey and the evasion of the authorities of the respondent States from cooperation with each other.
(a) Conducting investigations. Both respondent states carried out a large number of investigative measures without delay. The Court did not find in their actions deficiencies that could call into question the overall adequacy of the investigations as such. However, there was no need to conclude in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention on this issue, in view of the conclusions of the European Court concerning cooperation between the two States.
(b) The procedural obligation of cooperation. In circumstances like in the present case, when the investigation of the murder inevitably affected more than one state, it entailed an obligation on the part of the authorities of the respondent States to cooperate effectively and take all necessary measures for this purpose in order to facilitate and implement an effective investigation in the whole case. This duty consisted in maintaining the effective protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention and was consistent with the position of the relevant Council of Europe documents that provided for intergovernmental cooperation in order to more effectively prevent and suppress transnational crimes and punish those responsible. The nature and extent of the required cooperation inevitably depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Court is not empowered to determine whether the authorities of the respondent States have complied with their obligations under the European Convention on Extradition and the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and it should not indicate what measures the authorities were to take to ensure that the respondent States respected their obligations most effectively. The Court's task was to certify that the measures taken were appropriate and sufficient in such circumstances and in determining to what extent the minimum effort was possible and should have been taken.
From the materials provided to the Court, including the report of the UN Secretary General on the UN operation in Cyprus on May 27, 2005, it follows that the respondent states are not ready for a compromise and a search for mutual understanding. This position was based on political considerations reflecting the long and tense political dispute between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey. Although the respondent states had the opportunity to find a solution and come to an agreement mediated by UNFICYP, they did not use this opportunity. Any suggestions, such as meetings in a neutral area between police authorities, interrogation of suspects using a "video interrogation method" in the UN buffer zone, the possibility of organizing an ad hoc court in a neutral territory, the exchange of evidence and consideration of the level of technical services that were being made with the purpose of finding a compromise solution, faced a frank refusal by the authorities. Although several inter-community working groups and technical committees have been established, it seems that no one has considered the case to advance the investigation.
As a result of evasion of the respondent States from cooperation, their respective investigations have not progressed, and nothing has been done for more than eight years. The past time inevitably influenced the quantity and quality of available evidence and worsened the chances of completing the investigation. It also prolonged the suffering of family members.
At present, a lot of evidence is collected, eight suspects are identified, found and detained. Evasion from direct cooperation or with the mediation of UNFICYP entailed their release. If cooperation took place in accordance with the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, criminal proceedings could be instituted against one or more suspects or the investigation could come to a proper conclusion.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention by the Turkish authorities (unanimously) was admitted in the case, violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention by the Cypriot authorities (adopted by five votes "for" with two against).
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded each applicant EUR 8,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/513-guzelyurtlu-and-others-v-cyprus-and-turkey .
AİHM'nin 04 Nisan 2017 tarihli kararının "Tek Gida İş Sendikası" nın Türkiye aleyhine mesleki dernek davasıyla ilgili kararı "(şikayet no. 35009/05).
2005 yılında, başvuranlar şikâyetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.
Durumda, işçi sendikası olarak bir sendikayı tanımayı yasal olarak reddetme şikayeti başarılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Dava, İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunması Sözleşmesi'nin 11. maddesinin gereklerini ihlal etmedi. Sendika üyelerinin büyük ölçekli işten çıkarmaları durumunda, şirketin çalışanlarının sendikal temsilinin bulunmamasına yol açmıştır. Dava, İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunmasına İlişkin Sözleşme'nin 11. maddesinin gereklerini ihlal etti.
OLAYIN DURUMU
bunun kritere göre toplu sözleşme işçileri temsil edebilmek Türkiye'nin Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı tarafından tanınması için Mayıs 2004 yılında özel bir şirkete ait her üç fabrikalarda başvuru birliğinin meslek üyelerinin toplam sayısı yeterli oldu "şirketin çalışanlarının çoğunluğu." Ancak şirket bu tanıma itiraz etti. Aralık 2004 yılında İş Mahkemesi üç fabrikalar, hem de merkezdeki dikkate şirketin tüm çalışanları alırsak, başvuru Meslek Birliği üye sayısı yeterli değildi gösteren, uzman raporuna şirketin itirazı temelini onadı. Sendika başarısız bir şekilde karara itiraz etti. Bundan kısa bir süre sonra, şirket, personelin azaltılması veya profesyonel eksiklikler için başvuran profesyonel birliğin üyesi olan 40 çalışanı görevden aldı. 2004 yılının Mart ayında, bu eski çalışanlar iş mahkemelerine işten çıkarılmalarını talep ederek yasadışı işten çıkarılma cezasına itiraz ettiler.
Temmuz ve Aralık 2004 tarihleri arasında çeşitli iş mahkemeleri onlar çünkü sendika bunların üyelerinin görevden alındı sonucuna vardılar görevden işçilerin lehine karar verdi. Mahkemeler, şirkete işyerinde onları geri almalarını veya her bir maaşını, yıllık maaşla eşdeğer olan yasadışı işten çıkarılma tazminatı ödemelerini emretti.
Şirket, işten çıkarılan işçilerin herhangi birini geri almadı, tazminatlarını kendi lehlerine tazmin ederek ödediler. 2005 yılında, profesyonel başvuru sendikası artık şirket çalışanlarının üyelerine sahip değildi.
HUKUK SORUNLARI
Sözleşmenin 11. Maddesi ile uyum konusunda. (a) Toplu iş sözleşmesine katılım şartı olan başvuran sendika için temsilci statüsünü tanımayı reddetmek. Sivil davalardaki mahkemelerin başvuran bir temsilcisinin statüsünü tanımasının reddi, başvuranın örgütlenme özgürlüğü hakkına müdahale etmekti.
Buna göre hukuk davalarında mahkemeler yorumlanması, (mevcut durumda araştırma ve pazarlama alanında yönetim ve uygulamalar) Şirketin ana faaliyeti tamamlayıcı faaliyetler, bu durumda (ana faaliyet olarak aynı iş hattına gıda işleme ait ürünler) ne keyfi ne de açıkça dayanaksızdı.
Bu durumda, bir sendika şartı kanunla öngörülmüştü, üyelerinin sayısı şirketin toplam çalışan sayısının en az yarısı olduğunu kanıtlayan, şirkette temsilcisi statü istemeye.
Yerel mahkemeler, işçilerin haklarını büyük sendikalar tarafından koruma amacını açıkça izlemiştir. Başvuran sendika temsilcisinin statüsünün tanınmamasının reddedilmesi nihai değildir ve başvuran sendika üyelerinin sayısı şirketin çalışanlarının salt çoğunluğuna ulaşana kadar etkili olmuştur. Buna ek olarak, tartışmalı kararlar, prensipte, bir sendikaya sağ düşürmek değil, başvuru toplu sözleşme dışındaki yöntemlerle işveren getirmeyi amaçladığı, aynı zamanda o, üyeleri adına savunmak için gidiyordu pozisyon, bir bütün olarak şirketin çalışanları arasında ek üyeleri çekmeye çalışıyor.
Son olarak, şirketin merkez ofis çalışanları gıda işleme endüstrisi ürünlerine ait olarak kabul edilemez başvuranın argümanının sendika herhangi Sendikası'na üye bu işçileri caydırma etkisi olabilir. Bu koşullar altında, tartışmalı şirkette çoğunluğu temsil eden çalışanların sayısının sayılması yöntemi, sendikanın temel faaliyetlerini etkilemedi, ancak sadece ikincil bir unsur oluşturdu. Tartışmalı yargılar, başvuru sahibi profesyonel sendikanın ve söz konusu topluluğun rekabet eden çıkarları arasında adil bir denge kurmayı amaçlamıştır. Bu çözümler, bu nedenle, genel olarak örgütlenme özgürlüğünün sağlanması için bir araç ve üyelerinin mesleki çıkarlarını korumak için başvuru sendikasının yeteneği gibi kısmen devlet tarafından sağlanan takdir çerçevesinde kabul edilmiştir edilir.
KARAR
Bu durumda, Sözleşme'nin 11. maddesinin şartları ihlal edilmemiştir (oybirliğiyle).
(b) Başvuranın sendikasının tüm üyelerinin işten çıkarılmasından kaynaklanan, şirketteki sendikal hareketin parçalandığı iddia edilmiştir. Başvuranın sendikası tarafından, üyelerinden başka bir kuruluş olarak, sendika faaliyetlerini yürütme ve toplu pazarlığa katılma hakkının kullanılmasına müdahale edilmiştir. Tartışmalı müdahale, mahkemeler tarafından işgücü ihtilafları hakkında yorumlanan yasaya uygun olarak yapıldı. Buna ek olarak, işverenler yasadışı ateş işçilerin iade arasında seçim sağlayan ve onlara tazminat ödeyerek, tartışmalı mevzuat ve ilgili mahkeme kararları diğer kişilerin hak ve kamu düzeninin ihlali önleme korumak için, dolayısıyla işyerinde çatışma önleme amaçlı ve bulundu. Seçimi tazminat lehine yapmış olan şirket, profesyonel başvuru birliğini kendi bölgesinden geri çekti ve bu da şirketin çalışanlarının sendika temsilcilerinin yokluğuna ve tüm üyelerin sendika tarafından kaybına neden oldu. Nedeniyle sendikanın tüm üyelerinin kaybına, başvuru yerel makamların takdir marj ve parazit orantılılık daha detaylı delil gerektirmeyecek kaydıyla, onun sendikal faaliyetlerinin temelini etkileyen sınırlamalar ile karşı karşıya geldi.
Ancak, dava dosyasında hiçbir şey hukuk mahkemeleri dava ile uğraşan dair hiçbir delil yoktur, haksız işten çıkarılma tazminat kazandı yasaların belirlediği asgari miktar, işten çıkarılan işçilerin, örneğin, dikkate düşük maaşları alarak bu tür miktarların caydırıcı etkisinin ayrıntılı bir analiz yapmış ve / veya çalıştıkları şirketin önemli finansal yetenekleri. işverenin reddi mevcut durumda kararlarına yorumlanır yasayı ihlal etmediği, işçi ve gelecekteki yasadışı işten gelen işvereni caydırmak için yeterli değildi tazminat ödülünü, eski haline getirmek için. İlgili mevzuat, bu mahkemelerce nasıl uygulandığını, büyük ölçekli yasadışı işten sürdürmektedir işveren, üzerinde yeterince caydırıcı yaptırımlar empoze etmez, katılmak için işçileri ikna etmeye başvuranın yeteneğini mahrum. Sonuç olarak, yasama ne de dava kabul mahkemeler ne, işveren ile toplu sözleşme hakkının, prensip olarak, kendi üyeleri adına Ona dinlemek ve işveren ikna etmeye başvuru hakkının etkili bir egzersiz sendikayı garanti etmek müspet yükümlülüğünü yerine getirememesi. Sonuç olarak, başvuru sahibinin mesleki birliğinin ve bir bütün olarak şirketin rekabet eden çıkarları arasında gerekli adil denge kurulmamıştır.
KARAR
Sözleşmenin 11. Maddesi ihlal edildi (oybirliğiyle).
TAZMİNAT
Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. Mahkeme, başvuran sendikaya manevi tazminat olarak 10,000 Euro (EUR) vermiştir.
Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/514-tek-gida-is-sendikasi-nin-turkiye .
The ECHR judgment of 04 April 2017 on the case of the "Tek Gida Is Sendikasi" professional association against Turkey "( application No. 35009/05).
In 2005, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.
In the case, a complaint to a lawful refusal to recognize a trade union as a worker representative was successfully considered. The case did not violate the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In the case of large-scale dismissals of members of the trade union, which led to the absence of trade union representation of the company's employees. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
In May 2004, the total number of members of the applicant professional union in all three factories belonging to a particular company was sufficient to be recognized by the Ministry of Labor and Social Security of Turkey as capable of representing workers in collective bargaining on the basis of the criterion of "most employees of the company". However, the company objected to this recognition. In December 2004, the Labor Court upheld the company's objection on the basis of an expert opinion showing that if all employees of the company were taken into account in the three factories and at the head office, the number of members of the applicant's professional union was not sufficient. The trade union unsuccessfully appealed the decision. Shortly thereafter, the company sacked 40 employees who were members of the applicant professional union for staff reduction or for professional omissions. In March 2004, these former employees appealed to the labor courts for illegal dismissal, demanding that they be reinstated at work.
Between July and December 2004, various labor disputes courts ruled in favor of laid-off workers, concluding that they were dismissed because of their membership in the trade union. The courts ordered the company to restore them at work or to pay each of them compensation for illegal dismissal, equivalent to an annual salary.
The company did not restore any of the dismissed workers at work, paying them compensation compensated in their favor. In 2005, the professional applicant union no longer had members of the company's employees.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 11 of the Convention. (a) Refusal to recognize the status of representative for the applicant union, which was a condition for participation in collective bargaining. The refusal of courts in civil cases to recognize the status of a representative of the applicant union was interference in the right to freedom of association of the latter.
Interpretation of the law by the courts in civil cases, according to which activities additional to the main activity of the company (in the present case management and operations in the field of research and marketing), belonged to the same field of activity as its main activity (in the present case, processing of food products), was neither arbitrary nor manifestly unfounded.
At the same time, the requirement for a trade union striving to obtain a representative status in the company, to prove that the number of its members is at least half of the total number of employees of this company, was provided by law.
The domestic courts clearly pursued the goal of protecting the rights of workers by large trade unions. The refusal to recognize the status of representative for the applicant union was not final and was effective only until the number of members of the applicant union reached a simple majority of the company's employees. In addition, the contentious court decisions in principle did not detract from the right of the applicant's professional union to try to communicate to the employer in ways other than collective bargaining, the position that it intended to defend on behalf of its members while also trying to attract additional members to the company's employees as a whole.
Finally, the argument of the applicant's professional union that the employees of the company's head office could not be considered relevant to the food processing industry could have the effect of containing these workers from joining any trade union. Under such circumstances, the method of counting the number of employees representing the majority in the disputed company did not affect the fundamental activities of the trade union, but only constituted a secondary aspect. The controversial judgments were aimed at establishing an equitable balance between the competing interests of the applicant professional union and the entire community in question. These decisions, therefore, were taken within the limits of discretion granted to the state with respect to the means of securing both freedom of association in general and the ability of the applicant professional union to protect the professional interests of its members.
DECISION
In the case, the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention were not violated (unanimously).
(b) The alleged disintegration of the trade union movement in the company, caused by the dismissal of all members of the applicant's trade union. There was interference with the exercise by the applicant's trade union, as an entity other than its members, of its right to conduct trade union activities and to participate in collective bargaining. The controversial interference was in accordance with the law, the interpretation of which was given by the courts on labor disputes. In addition, allowing the employer to choose between reinstating the work of illegally dismissed workers and paying them compensation, controversial legislation and related court decisions were aimed at preventing conflicts in the workplace and, accordingly, protecting the rights of others and preventing violations of public order. Having made the choice in favor of paying compensation, the company withdrew the professional applicant union from its territory, which resulted in the complete absence of the trade union representation of the company's employees and the loss of all members by the trade union. Because of the loss of all its members, the professional union-applicant faced a restriction affecting the very basis of his trade union activities, which gave the domestic authorities a narrower margin of appreciation and required a more detailed justification for the proportionality of the intervention.
However, nothing in the materials of the case suggested that the civil courts, who reviewed the case, awarding as minimum compensation for the illegal dismissal, provided for by law, conducted a thorough analysis of the deterrent effect of such amounts, taking into account, for example, low salaries for laid-off workers and / or significant financial capabilities of the company in which they worked. The refusal of the employer to reinstate dismissed workers and the award of compensation, which was not sufficient to deter the employer from future unlawful dismissals, did not violate the law interpreted in the judgments in the present case. The relevant legislation, as it was applied by the courts, did not impose enough deterrent sanctions on the employer, who, in carrying out illegal large-scale dismissals, deprived the applicant of the ability to try to convince workers to join him. Consequently, neither the legislator nor the courts that examined the case complied with their positive obligation to guarantee the applicant's effective association the exercise of the right to try to persuade the employer to listen to his views on behalf of its members and, in principle, his right to collective bargaining with the employer. Consequently, the necessary fair balance between the competing interests of the professional union of the applicant and the company as a whole was not established.
DECISION
There has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention (unanimously).
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant union 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/515-tek-gida-is-sendikasi-v-turkey .
