Новости от 02 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 13 февраля 2018 года по делу "Зелик и Кель (Zelik and Kel) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 16088/06 и 41644/09).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей, которые были признаны виновными в совершении различных преступлений, на то, что их жалобы на указанные приговоры были рассмотрены в отсутствие их адвокатов. По делу допущено нарушение требования пункта 1 и подпункта "с" пункта 3 статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
В 2006 и 2009 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
В своих жалобах заявители, которые были признаны виновными в совершении различных преступлений, жаловались на то, что их жалобы на указанные приговоры были рассмотрены в отсутствие их адвокатов.
13 февраля 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пункта 1 и подпункта "с" пункта 3 статьи 6 Конвенции (право на справедливое судебное разбирательство).
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/564-zelik-and-kel-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 13 February 2018 in the case of Zelik and Kel v. Russia (applications no. 16088/06 and 41644/09).
The case successfully considered the complaints of the applicants, who were found guilty of committing various crimes, that their complaints about these sentences were examined in the absence of their lawyers. The case involved a violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 and subparagraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2006 and 2009, 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 who were found guilty of committing various crimes complained that their complaints about these sentences were examined in the absence of their lawyers.
On 13 February 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of paragraph 1 and subparagraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/565-zelik-and-kel-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 февраля 2018 года по делу "Митрюков (Mitryukov) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 57927/16, 76910/16 и 8680/17).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителя на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей во время трех различных периодов. Он также жаловался на то, что не располагал эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3, статьи 13 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
В 2016 и 2017 годах заявителю была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
В своих жалобах заявитель жаловался на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей во время трех различных периодов. Он также жаловался на то, что не располагал эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.
08 февраля 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителем Европейский Суд, принимая одностороннюю декларацию властей Российской Федерации, в которой признавалось нарушение в первый промежуток времени содержания заявителя под стражей, единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации также нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток), требование статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты) во второй промежуток времени содержания заявителя под стражей, но не нарушили эти положения Конвенции в третий промежуток времени, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 5 000 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/566-mitryukov-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of February 8, 2018 in the case of Mitryukov v. Russia (applications N 57927/16, 76910/16 and 8680/17).
The applicant's complaints on inhuman conditions of detention during three different periods were successfully considered in the case. He also complained that he did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 3, Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2016 and 2017, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaints, the applicant complained of inhuman conditions of detention during three different periods. He also complained that he did not have an effective remedy in this regard.
On 8 February 2018, on the basis of the complaints lodged by the applicant, the European Court, by adopting a unilateral declaration by the Government of the Russian Federation in which the violation of the applicant's detention in the first period of his detention was found, unanimously held that in the present case the Government also violated the requirement of article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture ), the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) during the second period of the applicant's detention, but did not violate these provisions of the Convention in the third time, and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/567-mitryukov-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 февраля 2018 года по делу "Пузрина и другие (Puzrina and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 5855/09, 46330/10, 70881/13, 6216/14, 53395/15, 33531/16, 34065/16, 42878/16, 50716/16 и 64175/16).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания во время этапирования, отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи, на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда и на длительность судебной проверки обоснованности их содержания под стражей. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении всех заявителей, статьи 13, пунктов 3 и 4 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении некоторых заявителей.
В 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 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 во время этапирования. Отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи, на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда и на длительность судебной проверки обоснованности их содержания под стражей.
08 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), требования пунктов 3 и 4 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность) в отношении отдельных заявителей, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 11 700 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/568-puzrina-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 8 February 2018 in the case of Puzrina and Others v. The Russian Federation (applications N 5855/09, 46330/10, 70881/13, 6216/14, 53395/15, 33531/16, 34065 / 16, 42878/16, 50716/16 and 64175/16).
The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints about inhuman conditions of detention during the transfer, some applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard, the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of their detention under guards. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to all the applicants, Article 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to certain applicants.
In 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 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 (10 persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention during the transfer. Individual applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard, the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of their detention.
On 8 February 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 (right to an effective remedy), the requirements of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) against individual applicants, and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 11 700 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/569-puzrina-and-others-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 февраля 2018 года по делу "Стучилов и другие (Stuchilov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 50932/16, 54522/16, 24303/17 и 26979/17).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания во время этапирования, один заявитель также жаловался на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении всех заявителей, пунктов 3 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении одного заявителя.
В 2016 и 2017 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
В своих жалобах заявители (четыре человека) жаловались на бесчеловечные условия содержания во время этапирования. Один заявитель также жаловался на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда.
08 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, требования пунктов 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность) в отношении одного заявителя, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 8 200 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/570-stuchilov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 08 February 2018 in the case of Stuchilov and Others v. Russia (applications Nos. 50932/16, 54522/16, 24303/17 and 26979/17).
In the case, the applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions of detention during the transfer were successfully considered, one applicant also complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to all the applicants, Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to one applicant.
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 (four persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention during the transfer. One applicant also complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention.
On 8 February 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 the applicants, the requirements of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) one applicant and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 8,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/571-stuchilov-and-others-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 февраля 2018 года по делу "Полещук и другие (Poleshchuk and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 2420/09, 61636/10, 40973/14, 36095/16, 47517/16, 49418/16, 50469/16, 56900/16 и 60289/16).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, некоторые заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи, а также на условия содержания во время этапирования. 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 2009, 2010, 2014 и 2016 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
В своих жалобах заявители (девять человек) жаловались на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. Некоторые заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи, а также на условия содержания во время этапирования.
08 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 67 200 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/572-poleshchuk-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 08 February 2018 in the Poleshchuk and Others case against the Russian Federation (applications N 2420/09, 61636/10, 40973/14, 36095/16, 47517/16, 49418/16, 50469 / 16, 56900/16 and 60289/16).
In the case, the applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, some also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard, as well as conditions of detention during the transfer. 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 2009, 2010, 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 (nine) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Some applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard, as well as conditions of detention during the transfer.
On 8 February 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present 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 67,200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/573-poleshchuk-and-others-v-russia .
Пресуда ЕСЉП од 21. марта 2017. године у предмету Митровиц против Србије (представка бр. 52142/12).
У 2012. години подносиоцу представке је пружена помоћ у припреми представке. Након тога, представка је достављена Србији.
Апликација подносиоца пријаве за притвор је успјешно испитана у предмету на основу одлуке суда који је дјеловао изван правосудног система Србије. Случај је обухватао кршење захтјева из члана 5 Конвенције за заштиту људских права и основних слобода.
ОКОЛНОСТИ СЛУЧАЈА
Године 1994. подносилац је осуђен на осам година затвора због убиства суда, под контролом Републике Српске Крајине, међународно непризната творевина брз догодили су се на територији Републике Хрватске током рата у бившој Југославији. Ово образовање престало је постојати 1995. и Србија никада није признала као држава. Подносилац представке се жалио да је његов притвор у српском затвору на основу ове реченице прекршио члан 5 Конвенције.
ПИТАЊА ЗАКОНА
Подносилац представке је осуђен за убиство суда који је деловао изван правосудног система Србије. Био је пребачен у затвор у Србији због издржавања казне. Српске власти нису спровеле поступак за признавање иностраног решења, како то захтева домаћа легислатива. Пошто је подносилац представке био задржан, а у одсуству било каквих других база утврђених националним законодавством за његово притварање, легалност захтева садржаних у ставу 1 члана 5 Конвенције, нису извршена у притвору на основу не-националних решења, која није била призната на националном нивоу.
ОДЛУКА
Кршење захтјева из члана 5 Конвенције (једногласно) учињено је у случају.
КОМПЕНЗАЦИЈА
Приликом примене члана 41 Конвенције. Захтев за накнаду штете није подигнут.
Извор публикације: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/558-mitrovic-protiv-srbie .
The ECHR judgment of 21 March 2017 in the case of Mitrovic v. Serbia (application No. 52142/12).
In 2012, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Serbia.
The applicant's application for his detention was successfully examined in the case on the basis of a decision of the court that acted outside the judicial system of Serbia. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
In 1994, the applicant was sentenced to eight years in prison for killing a internationally unrecognized self-proclaimed entity that had arisen on the territory of the Republic of Croatia during the war in the former Yugoslavia by a court controlled by the Republika Srpska Krajina. This education ceased to exist in 1995 and was never recognized as a state by Serbia. The applicant complained that his detention in a Serb prison on the basis of this sentence violated Article 5 of the Convention.
ISSUES OF LAW
The applicant was convicted of murder by a court that acted outside the judicial system of Serbia. He was transferred to a Serbian prison for serving his sentences. The Serbian authorities did not conduct proceedings to recognize a foreign solution, as required by domestic legislation. Since the applicant was detained on the basis of a non-national decision that was not recognized at the country level, and in the absence of any other basis provided for by national legislation for his detention, the requirement of lawfulness contained in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention was not met.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The claim for damages was not raised.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/559-mitrovic-v-serbia .
ECHR dómur frá 16. mars 2017 um Olafsson gegn Íslandi (kvörtun nr. 58493/13).
Árið 2013 var umsækjandinn aðstoðaður við undirbúning kvörtunarinnar. Í kjölfarið var kvörtunin send til Íslands.
Í tilviki telst vel kvörtun gegn álagningu sektar um ritstjóri Internet vefgátt að birta ásakanir um barnaníð gagnvart manni sem er frambjóðandi í kosningunum. Málið var brot á kröfum 10. gr. Samningsins um vernd mannréttinda og grundvallarfrelsis.
Umhverfi um málið
Umsækjandi, sem var ritstjóri Internet vefgátt, hefur birt ásökunum sem gerðar eru af tveimur systrum, samkvæmt sem ættingi þeirra, sem var frambjóðandi í kosningunum, undir þeim til kynferðislegrar misnotkunar í æsku. Fjölskyldan byrjaði ásakanir gegn umsækjanda og baðst um að fjöldi yfirlýsingar sé ósatt. Hæstiréttur viðurkenndi yfirlýsingarnar sem sögðu að ættingjar væru sekir um misnotkun barna, ærumeiðandi og bauð umsækjanda að greiða bætur.
Í hefðbundnum málum kvartaði umsækjandi samkvæmt 10. gr. Samningsins um brot á rétti sínum til tjáningarfrelsis.
Málum laga
Um samræmi við 10. gr. Samningsins. Vandamálið um kynferðislegt ofbeldi gegn börnum er alvarlegt mál af almannahagsmunum. Sem frambjóðandi til alþingiskosningunum ætti að skoða sem ættingi einstaklings sem óhjákvæmilega og vitandi inn í kúlu opinberra upplýsinga og opna upp viðleitni þeirra til að fylgjast nánar með. Almenna krafan blaðamanna markvisst og formlega að fjarlægð sig frá efni tilvitnanir sem gætu brjóta eða vekja aðra einstaklinga eða dregur úr mannorð þeirra er ekki í samræmi við hlutverk fjölmiðla að veita upplýsingar um núverandi atburðum, skoðanir og hugmyndir. Hegning blaðamaður fyrir að aðstoða í að miðla yfirlýsingar einstaklings í viðtali myndi alvarlega minnka hlutverk fjölmiðla í umfjöllun um málefni sem varða hagsmuni almennings og ættu ekki að gilda í fjarveru sérstaklega sannfærandi ástæða til að gera það. Blaðamaður sem skrifaði greinina, að reyna að athuga hvort traust systur skilið, og hvort gjöld þeirra satt, með viðtölum nokkrum mönnum sem tengjast atburðum og ættingjar systur fengu tækifæri til að tjá sig um ásakanir. Við slíkar aðstæður í ljósi þess að kærandi var ritstjóri, ekki blaðamaður dómstóllinn talið að kærandi hafi starfað í góðri trú og veitt skrifa grein í samræmi við réttarfar venjulegrar blaðamennsku skyldu að sannreyna staðreyndir yfirlýsingar. Það var ljóst að umdeild yfirlýsingar komu frá systrum. Þeir skrifuðu áður bréf sem innihalda hluti af ásökunum og sendi það til ættingja þeirra, lögreglu og barnaverndarþjónustu. Þeir birtu þetta bréf og öll umdeild yfirlýsingar á eigin vefsvæði áður en greinar voru birtar af ritstjóra.
Systkini ættingja samkvæmt íslenskum lögum gæti byrjað ásakanir gegn systur, og það var vísbending um að hann vildi frekar hefja mál gegn umsækjanda einum. Þótt greiðsla, sem var safnað frá umsækjanda er ekki glæpamaður refsingu, og sú upphæð er ekki um alvarleg, í tengslum við mat á meðalhófi, án tillits til þess hvort beiting viðurlaga óverulegar, hafði verðmæti aðeins staðreynd að sú ákvörðun var tekin að því er varðar viðkomandi, jafnvel þótt slík ákvörðun væri borgaraleg í eðli sínu. Óviðeigandi takmörkun á tjáningarfrelsi leiddi í raun til þess að þessi umfjöllun um fjölmiðla væri flókið eða sagt upp.
ÁKVÖRÐUN
Í tilviki var brot á kröfum 10. gr. Samningsins (einróma samþykkt).
Bætur
Við beitingu 41. gr. Samningsins. Krafan um tjóni var ekki hækkuð.
Heimild til birtingar: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/560-olafsson-gegn-islandi .
ECHR judgment of 16 March 2017 in the case of Olafsson v. Iceland (application No. 58493/13).
In 2013, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Iceland.
In the case, a complaint was successfully examined for imposing a fine on the editor of the Internet portal for publishing charges of violence against a child against a person who is an electoral candidate. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant, who was the editor of the information Internet portal, published the allegations made by two sisters, according to which their relative, who was an election candidate, subjected them to sexual violence in childhood. The relative initiated a defamation proceedings against the applicant, asking that a number of statements be found to be untrue. The Supreme Court recognized the statements suggesting that the relative was guilty of child abuse, defamatory, and ordered the applicant to pay compensation.
In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of his right to freedom of expression.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 10 of the Convention. The problem of sexual violence against children is a serious issue of public interest. As a candidate for the post in the general election, the relative must be considered as a person who inevitably and knowingly entered the field of public information and opened its actions for closer monitoring. The general requirement for journalists to systematically and formally distance themselves from the content of quotations that may offend or provoke others or diminish their reputation is not compatible with the role of the press in providing information on current events, opinions and ideas. Punishing a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by a person in an interview can seriously undermine the contribution of the press to the discussion of public interest issues and should not be used in the absence of particularly compelling reasons for this. The journalist who wrote the articles tried to check whether the sisters deserve trust, and whether their accusations are truthful, by interviewing several persons related to the events, and a relative of the sisters was given the opportunity to comment on the charges. In these circumstances, considering that the applicant was an editor and not a journalist, the Court considered that the applicant acted in good faith and ensured the writing of the article in accordance with the usual journalistic obligations to verify factual allegations. It was clear that the controversial statements came from the sisters. They previously wrote a letter containing part of the allegations, and sent it to their relatives, the police and child protection services. They published this letter and all the controversial statements on their own website before the articles were published by the editor.
A sibling's relative under the laws of Iceland could initiate a defamation proceedings against sisters, and it was indicative that he preferred to initiate proceedings against the applicant alone. Although the compensation that was collected from the applicant was not a criminal penalty and the amount was not serious, in the context of proportionality assessment, whether the sanction applied was insignificant, the very fact that the decision was made against the interested person mattered, even if such a decision was civil in nature. Any improper restriction of freedom of expression effectively led to the threat that media coverage of such issues would be complicated or terminated.
DECISION
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (unanimously adopted).
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The claim for damages was not raised.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/561-olafsson-v-iceland .
Η απόφαση του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων της 16ης Μαρτίου 2017 στην υπόθεση Modestou κατά Ελλάδας (καταγγελία αριθ. 51693/13).
Το 2013, ο αιτών βοήθησε στην προετοιμασία της καταγγελίας. Στη συνέχεια, η καταγγελία κοινοποιήθηκε στην Ελλάδα.
Στην προκειμένη περίπτωση, η καταγγελία του αιτούντος σχετικά με τη διεξαγωγή των αναζητήσεων και την κατάσχεση περιουσιακών στοιχείων κατά την απουσία του εξετάστηκε επιτυχώς. Στην περίπτωση αυτή υπήρξε παραβίαση των όρων του άρθρου 8 της Σύμβασης για την Προστασία των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου και των Θεμελιωδών Ελευθεριών.
Επί της περιπτώσεως
Τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2010, στο πλαίσιο της προκαταρκτικής έρευνας της αστυνομίας, το σπίτι του προσφεύγοντος αναζήτηση και σύμφωνα με τις εντολές του εισαγγελέα δύο υπολογιστές και κατασχέθηκαν εκατοντάδες έγγραφα. Τον Νοέμβριο του 2012, η προσφεύγουσα άσκησε προσφυγή ενώπιον του Εφετείου θάλαμο κατηγορητήριο να κηρύξει άκυρη η αναζήτηση, ακύρωσε την παραγγελία την κατάσχεση και την επιστροφή των κατασχεθέντων αντικειμένων. Ωστόσο, η αίτησή του απορρίφθηκε τον Φεβρουάριο του 2013. Η απόφαση βασίστηκε, μεταξύ άλλων, στην αξιολόγηση του κατά πόσον οι δραστηριότητες αναζήτησης και κατάσχεσης θα μπορούσαν να διεξαχθούν στο πλαίσιο μιας προκαταρκτικής αστυνομικής έρευνας. Η προσφεύγουσα άσκησε ανεπιτυχώς προσφυγή κατά της αποφάσεως αυτής.
ΖΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΝΟΜΟΥ
Όσον αφορά τη συμμόρφωση με το άρθρο 8 της Σύμβασης. Ιδιωτική ανακριτές έψαξε το σπίτι και επαγγελματικούς χώρους της προσφεύγουσας, κατάσχεση πολλά έγγραφα και υπολογιστές που ανήκουν σ 'αυτόν, αποτελούσε επέμβαση στο δικαίωμα του σεβασμού της σπίτι, που παρέχεται από το νόμο.
Η έρευνα διεξήχθη στο πλαίσιο της προκαταρκτικής αστυνομικής έρευνας πριν από την έναρξη της ποινικής διαδικασίας κατά του αιτητή. Ο στόχος του ήταν να βρεθούν αποδείξεις και ενδείξεις συμμετοχής σε εγκληματικές δραστηριότητες. Κατά συνέπεια, επιδίωξε τον στόχο της πρόληψης των ταραχών και των εγκλημάτων. Μια αναζήτηση στο πλαίσιο της προκαταρκτικής έρευνας, η αστυνομία θα πρέπει να συνοδεύεται από κατάλληλες και επαρκείς εγγυήσεις για να διασφαλιστεί ότι δεν χρησιμοποιούν ως εργαλείο που παρέχει η αστυνομία θέτει σε κίνδυνο τα υλικά σε πρόσωπα που δεν έχουν κατηγορηθεί για τη διάπραξη ενός εγκλήματος.
Το ένταλμα για την έρευνα, που εκδόθηκε από τον εισαγγελέα, διατυπώθηκε γενικά. Μπορεί να υπάρχουν περιπτώσεις στις οποίες ήταν αδύνατο να καταρτίσει μια παραγγελία με υψηλό βαθμό ακρίβειας, όπως στην προκειμένη περίπτωση, όπου μια αναζήτηση διορίστηκε για να συλλέξει αποδεικτικά στοιχεία σε σχέση με τους ισχυρισμούς της εγκληματικής δραστηριότητας, που επηρεάζει πολλά άτομα για μεγάλα χρονικά διαστήματα. Ωστόσο, σε τέτοιες περιπτώσεις και, ιδίως, όπως εν προκειμένω, εφόσον η εθνική νομοθεσία δεν προβλέπει την προσωρινή δικαστική επανεξέταση της νομιμότητας και της αναγκαιότητας των μέτρων έρευνας, θα πρέπει να υπάρχουν άλλες εγγυήσεις, ιδίως όσον αφορά την εκτέλεση του εντάλματος έρευνας, προκειμένου να εξισορροπηθούν οι αδυναμίες της έκδοσης και της κράτησης παραγγελιών .
Η έρευνα στην παρούσα υπόθεση συνοδεύτηκε από ορισμένες διαδικαστικές εγγυήσεις. Πρώτον, ενέκρινε τη εισαγγελέα στο Εφετείο, το οποίο έχει εκδοθεί ένταλμα έρευνας και του ανέθεσε τη διαχείριση της αστυνομίας. Δεύτερον, η έρευνα διεξήχθη από αστυνομικό συνοδευόμενο από αναπληρωτή εισαγγελέα. Η προσφεύγουσα δεν ήταν παρούσα κατά τη διάρκεια της έρευνας, η οποία διήρκεσε 12,5 ώρες, και από την υπόθεση δεν είναι σαφές εάν οι ανακριτικές εργάτες προσπαθούσαν να την ενημερώσει για την παρουσία τους και τις δραστηριότητές τους, αν και ο Κώδικας Ποινικής Δικονομίας ορίζει ότι το πρόσωπο που διεξάγει την έρευνα, να καλέσει το πρόσωπο που κατέχει το δωμάτιο , να συμμετάσχουν σε αυτήν. Ακόμα και αν υποθέσουμε ότι η κυβέρνηση σκόπευε να χρησιμοποιήσει το στοιχείο της έκπληξης, χωρίς ειδοποίηση προς τον αιτούντα εκ των προτέρων, δεν υπάρχει τίποτα να τους αφήσουμε να προσπαθήσει να επικοινωνήσει μαζί του, σύμφωνα με το νόμο κατά το χρόνο της έρευνας, η οποία διήρκεσε αρκετές ώρες.
Τέλος, δεν υπήρξε άμεσος αναδρομικός δικαστικός έλεγχος. Η έρευνα οδήγησε στην κατάσχεση δύο υπολογιστών και εκατοντάδων εγγράφων και δεν διαπιστώθηκε κατά πόσον όλα αυτά τα έγγραφα συνδέονταν άμεσα με το υπό έρευνα έγκλημα. Με βάση τη διατύπωση του εντάλματος θα μπορούσε επίσης να είναι ερωτήματα ως προς το αν ο προσφεύγων ενημερώθηκε σχετικά με την αναζήτηση, οι λόγοι που θα του επέτρεπε να βεβαιωθείτε ότι η αναζήτηση περιορίζεται στη διερεύνηση του αδικήματος που αναφέρεται στην αναζήτηση, και να αμφισβητήσει τυχόν καταχρήσεις στον τομέα αυτό. Κατηγορητήριο Δικαστήριο Επιμελητήριο of Appeal, το οποίο συνέταξε ο αιτών εξέδωσε την απόφασή της σε περισσότερα από δύο χρόνια μετά τα γεγονότα, και έχει αφιερώσει ένα μεγάλο μέρος του ορισμού των δραστηριοτήτων θα μπορούσαν οι έρευνες και κατασχέσεις που πραγματοποιούνται στο πλαίσιο της προκαταρκτικής έρευνας της αστυνομίας. Κατά συνέπεια, οι εγχώριες αρχές δεν εκπλήρωσαν την υποχρέωσή τους να προβάλλουν "σχετικούς και επαρκείς" λόγους για να αιτιολογήσουν την έκδοση εντάλματος έρευνας. Υπό αυτές τις συνθήκες, τα επίδικα μέτρα ήταν εύλογα ανάλογο προς τον επιδιωκόμενο νόμιμο σκοπό, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη το δημόσιο συμφέρον να διασφαλίσουν το σεβασμό του σπιτιού.
ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ
Η παραβίαση των απαιτήσεων του άρθρου 8 της Σύμβασης (ομόφωνα) διαπράχθηκε.
ΑΠΟΖΗΜΙΩΣΗ
Κατά την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 41 της Σύμβασης. Το Δικαστήριο χορήγησε στον αιτούντα 2.000 ευρώ για ηθική βλάβη.
Πηγή δημοσίευσης: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/562-modestou-vv-greece .
The ECHR judgment of 16 March 2017 in the case of Modestou v. Greece (application No. 51693/13).
In 2013, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Greece.
In the case, the applicant's complaint on the conduct of searches and seizure of property in his absence was successfully examined. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
In September 2010, as part of the preliminary police investigation, the applicant's house was searched and two computers and hundreds of documents were confiscated according to the orders of the prosecutor. In November 2012 the applicant appealed to the Appeals Chamber of the Court of Appeal with a request to declare the search null and void, the cancellation of the order to seize and return seized items. However, his application was rejected in February 2013. The judgment was based, inter alia, on assessing whether the search and seizure activities could be conducted in the context of a preliminary police investigation. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed this decision.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. The search by the investigators of the applicant's private home and business premises, the seizure of several documents and computers belonging to him, constituted an interference with his right to respect for the home, as provided by law.
The search was conducted as part of the preliminary police investigation before the institution of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. His goal was to find evidence and evidence of involvement in criminal activities. Accordingly, he pursued the goal of preventing riots and crimes. The search in the preliminary police investigation must be accompanied by adequate and sufficient guarantees to ensure that it is not used as a means of providing the police with compromising material on persons who have not yet been recognized as suspected of committing a crime.
The warrant for the search, issued by the prosecutor, was formulated in general terms. There are situations in which it was impossible to draw up an order with a high degree of accuracy, as in the present case, where a search was made to collect evidence in connection with suspicions of criminal activity affecting several individuals for extended periods. However, in such cases and, in particular, as in the present case, if domestic law does not provide for a preliminary judicial review of the legality and the need for this investigative measure, there must be other guarantees, especially in terms of the execution of the search warrant, in order to balance the shortcomings of the issuance and content of the warrant .
The search in the present case was accompanied by some procedural guarantees. First, it was sanctioned by the prosecutor at the appellate court, which issued a warrant for the search and instructed him to conduct the police department. Secondly, the search was conducted by a police officer accompanied by a deputy prosecutor. The applicant was not present during the search, which lasted 12.5 hours, and it is not clear from the case materials whether the investigators tried to inform him of their presence or their actions, although the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the person conducting the search to invite the person occupying the premises , to participate in it. Even assuming that the authorities intended to use the surprise effect without notifying the applicant in advance, nothing prevented them from trying to contact him in accordance with the law during the very search, which lasted several hours.
Finally, there was no immediate retrospective judicial review. The search resulted in the seizure of two computers and hundreds of documents, and it was not established whether all these documents were directly related to the crime under investigation. On the basis of the wording of the warrant, questions could also arise as to whether the applicant was notified of the search grounds that would allow him to ascertain that the search is limited to the investigation of the crime mentioned in the search and to appeal any abuse in this regard. The indictment chamber of the appellate court addressed by the applicant rendered its decision more than two years after the events and devoted most of it to determining whether the search and seizure activities could be conducted as part of a preliminary police investigation. Consequently, the domestic authorities did not fulfill their obligation to bring "relevant and sufficient" reasons for justifying the issuance of a search warrant. In such circumstances, the measures complained of were not reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, taking into account the public interest in ensuring respect for the home.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/563-modestou-v-greece .
