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

Новости от 07 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 07.08.2018 11:29

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 11 января 2018 года по делу "Степанов и другие (Stepanov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 27015/12, 35210/16, 40467/16, 48141/16, 78007/16, 5883/17 и 7590/17).

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. 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 2012, 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. Некоторые заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

11 января 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 39 700 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/628-stepanov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

The ECHR judgment of 11 January 2018 in the case of Stepanov and Others v. Russia (applications no. 27015/12, 35210/16, 40467/16, 48141/16, 78007/16, 5883/17 and 7590 / 17).

In the case, the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, and some 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 2012, 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. Some applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

On 11 January 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 39,700 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/629-stepanov-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 11 января 2018 года по делу "Сагатинов и другие (Sagatinov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 20792/08, 3267/12 и 20326/12).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации, устанавливающих исполнение обязательства в натуре в пользу заявителей, а также на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод и статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции.

 

В 2008 и 2012 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (три человека) жаловались на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации, устанавливающих исполнение обязательства в натуре в пользу заявителей, а также на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

11 января 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции (право на справедливое судебное разбирательство), статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции (защита собственности), и что отсутствует необходимость рассматривать жалобу на нарушение статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты), обязав государство-ответчика обеспечить исполнение указанных судебных решений.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/630-sagatinov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 11 January 2018 in the case of Sagatinov and Others v. Russia (applications No. 20792/08, 3267/12 and 20326/12).

 

In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation establishing the fulfillment of the obligation in kind in favor of the applicants, as well as the fact that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. There has been a violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 

In 2008 and 2012, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (three persons) complained of non-compliance with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation establishing the performance of an obligation in kind in favor of the applicants, and also that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 11 January 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that there is no the need to consider a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy), obliging the respondent State to enforce those judgments.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/631-sagatinov-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 11 января 2018 года по делу "Бебутов и другие (Bebutov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 36325/05, 2548/10, 72800/11, 18356/13, 6536/14 и 38045/14).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации или на задержку в их исполнении, заявители также указывали на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод и статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции.

 

В 2005, 2010, 2011, 2013 и 2014 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (14 человек) жаловались на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации или на задержку в их исполнении. Заявители также указывали на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

11 января 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции (право на справедливое судебное разбирательство), статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции (защита собственности) и что отсутствует необходимость рассматривать жалобу на нарушение статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты), обязав государство-ответчика обеспечить исполнение указанных судебных решений и выплатить заявителям 32 500 евро в качестве справедливой компенсации.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/632-bebutov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 11 January 2018 in the case of Bebutov and Others v. Russia (applications N 36325/05, 2548/10, 72800/11, 18356/13, 6536/14 and 38045/14).

 

The applicants successfully complained about the applicants' failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or the delay in their execution, the applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. There has been a violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 

In 2005, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014, 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 (14 persons) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or delay in their execution. The applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 11 January 2018, on the basis of complaints filed by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that there is no need to consider a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy), obliging the respondent State to enforce these judgments and to pay applicants EUR 32,500 in interest.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/633-bebutov-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 11 января 2018 года по делу "Левин и другие (Levin and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 29584/05, 38432/11, 60229/11, 70271/12, 15174/13, 9210/15, 43735/16, 9495/17 и 14039/17).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2005, 2011, 2012, 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 (девять человек) жаловались на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда.

 

11 января 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требования пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 26 800 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/634-levin-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 11 January 2018 in the case of Levin and Others v. The Russian Federation (applications N 29584/05, 38432/11, 60229/11, 70271/12, 15174/13, 9210/15, 43735 / 16, 9495/17 and 14039/17).

 

The applicants successfully complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention. There has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2005, 2011, 2012, 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 (nine) complained of the excessive length of pre-trial detention.

 

On 11 January 2018, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 26,800 euros in compensation for moral harm.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/635-levin-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 11 января 2018 года по делу "Павлов и другие (Pavlov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 24715/16, 44246/16, 5600/17, 6690/17, 11771/17, 12052/17, 14416/17 и 16116/17).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2016 и 2017 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (восемь человек) жаловались на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда.

 

11 января 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требования пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 16 500 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/636-pavlov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 11 January 2018 in the case of Pavlov and Others v. Russia (applications no. 24715/16, 44246/16, 5600/17, 6690/17, 11771/17, 12052/17, 14416 / 17 and 16116/17).

 

The applicants successfully complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention. There has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

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 (eight) complained of the excessive length of pre-trial detention.

 

On 11 January 2018, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants 16 500 euros in compensation for moral harm.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/637-pavlov-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Presoja ESČP z dne 24. januarja 2017 v zadevi Koprivnikar proti Sloveniji (pritožba št. 67503/13).

 

V letu 2013 je pritožniku pomagal pri pripravi pritožbe. Kasneje je bila pritožba posredovana tudi Sloveniji.

 

V tem primeru se je pritožnik uspešno pritožil na kumulativno kazen za več kaznivih dejanj. Primer je bil kršitev zahtev iz člena 7 Konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin.

 

 

 

OKOLIŠČINE DELA

 


Pritožnik je bil obsojen na podlagi ločenih kazni treh ločenih kaznivih dejanj, za katere je bil obsojen na zaporno kazen pet mesecev, štiri leta in 30 let. Pozneje je tožeča stranka pri okrožnem sodišču v skladu s členom 53 § 2 (2) kazenskega zakonika leta 2008 združiti tri zaporne kazni v isti kazni.

 

Ta določba je določila, da mora skupna kazen presegati vsako individualno kazen, ne sme pa presegati vsote kazni ali 20 let zapora. Ob upoštevanju, da zakonodajalec ni nameraval uvesti zakonodajo, ki omogoča kriminalcem, obsojen na 30 let zapora, da koristi od skupne kazni, ki je bila znižana na 10 let, ko so v kombinaciji z zločini, je Okrožno sodišče tožeči stranki naložil kumulativno kazen 30 let odvzem prostosti za vsa tri kazniva dejanja. V konvencionalnih postopkih se je pritožnik pritožil, da je kazenska sankcija, ki se je nanašala na njega, kršila člen 7 Konvencije.

 


VPRAŠANJA ZAKONA

 


V zvezi z izpolnjevanjem zahtev iz člena 7 Konvencije. Ustrezni pravni status, ki so ga uporabili domača sodišča, je zagotovila nezadostno pravno podlago za določitev kazni. Zlasti uporaba besedila Kazenskega zakonika iz leta 2008 v položaju tožeče stranke je povzročila nasprotujoče si rezultate. V tistem času, tako v smislu te določbe, da tožeča stranka ni imela, da bi dobili splošen kazen, daljšo od 20 let, je bila skupna kazen večja od vsake posamezne kazni, ki je tožeča stranka vključena kazen zapora 30 let. Edini način, s katerim sodišča tožene države, da zagovarja načelo, da lahko samo zakon opredeliti kaznivo dejanje in kaznuje in ublažitev posledic nepredvidljivosti prava v tem primeru je bilo, ali naj razloži okvarjenega položaj restriktivna, da je, v korist tožeče stranke.

 

Ustrezna določba se lahko uporablja za tožečo stranko skozi zanemarjanja spodnjo mejo, ki je potrebna, da skupna kazen presegla vsak stavek, ki ga ignorirajo zgornjo mejo, ki je zagotovila, da je celotno obdobje zapora ne presega najvišjo kazen 20 let zapora. Prva možnost je bila ugodnejša za tožečo stranko in morala upoštevati najvišjo mejo splošne kazni, ki je bila izrecno določena z zakonom. Slovenska sodišča so interpretirali okvarjen položaj s prerazporeditvijo na različne norme razlage, in sklenila, da je treba razumeti, kot da nalaga kazen 30 let zapora, čeprav je bila takšna kazen hujša, kot je izrecno določeno največ, in čeprav, glede na besedilo te določbe, očitno je škodovalo interesom tožeče stranke.

 

V skladu s tem in ob upoštevanju vseh zgornjih ugotovitev domača sodišča niso ravnala v skladu z načelom zakonitosti, vsebovanim v 7. členu Konvencije. Splošna kazen, ki je bila naložena tožeči stranki, je kršila načelo, da lahko samo kazni določi kaznovanje in načelo retroaktivne uporabe mehkega kazenskega prava.

 


SKLEP

 


Zadeva je bila kršitev zahtev člena 7 Konvencije (sprejeta s šestimi glasovi za "z enim -" proti ").

 


NADOMESTILO

 


Pri uporabi člena 41 Konvencije. Uvedba kršitve samo po sebi predstavlja zadostno pošteno nadomestilo.

 

 

 

Vir izdaje: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/622-koprivnikar-proti-sloveniji .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 24 January 2017 in the case of Koprivnikar v. Slovenia (application No. 67503/13).

 

In 2013, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was also communicated to Slovenia.

 

In the case, the applicant successfully complained of the cumulative punishment for multiple crimes. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant was convicted by separate sentences for three separate crimes, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for five months, four years and 30 years respectively. Subsequently, the applicant appealed to the district court in accordance with Article 53 § 2 (2) of the Criminal Code of 2008 on combining three prison terms in one sentence.

 

This provision established that the total punishment should exceed each individual punishment, but should not exceed the sum of punishments or 20 years of imprisonment. Taking into account that the legislator did not intend to introduce legislation allowing criminals sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment to benefit from a general punishment that should have been reduced by 10 years, when the crimes were combined, the district court appointed the applicant a total sentence of 30 years deprivation of liberty for all three crimes. In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained that the punishment applied to him violated Article 7 of the Convention.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention. The applicable legal status used by the domestic courts provided an insufficient legal basis for determining the punishment. In particular, the application of the wording of the 2008 Criminal Code to the applicant's situation produced contradictory results. While under the terms of this provision the applicant was not required to receive a general punishment for more than 20 years, the total punishment was to exceed each individual sentence, which in the applicant's case included a sentence of imprisonment of 30 years. The only way in which the courts of the respondent State could enforce the principle that only the law could determine the crime and establish punishment and mitigate the consequences of the unpredictability of the law in the present case was to interpret the defective position restrictively, that is, in the applicant's favor.

 

The corresponding provision could be applied to the applicant by ignoring the lower limit, which required that the total punishment exceed each individual punishment, by ignoring the upper limit, which provided that the total term of imprisonment did not exceed the maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment. The first option was more favorable for the applicant and had to take into account the maximum limit of the general punishment explicitly provided for by law. The courts of Slovenia interpreted the defective situation using various interpretations and concluded that it should be understood as imposing punishment in the form of 30 years of imprisonment, although this punishment was more severe than an explicit maximum, and although, given the formulation of this provision, it clearly prejudiced the applicant's interests.

 

Accordingly, and taking into account all the above considerations, the domestic courts failed to comply with the principle of legality embodied in Article 7 of the Convention. The general punishment imposed on the applicant violated the principle that only the law can establish punishment, and the principle of retrospective application of a softer criminal law.

 


DECISION

 


The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention (adopted by six votes "for" with one - "against").

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The establishment of a violation in itself will constitute sufficient fair compensation.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/623-koprivnikar-v-slovenia .

 

 

Решението на ЕКПЧ от 19 януари 2017 г. по делото Иван Тодоров с / у България (жалба № 71545/11).

 

През 2011 г. жалбоподателят е подпомогнат при подготовката на жалбата. Впоследствие жалбата е била и съобщена на България.

 

В случая жалбата за липсата на средство за защита бе успешно разгледана, за да се определи дали е изтекъл срокът за ограничаване на изтичането на срока на наложеното от жалбоподателя наказание за престъплението. Делото е свързано с нарушение на изискванията на член 5 от Конвенцията за защита на правата на човека и основните свободи.

 

 

 

ОБСТОЯТЕЛСТВА ПО ДЕЛОТО

 


През април 1987 г. жалбоподателят е признат за виновен за подпомагане и подбуждане към злоупотреба с обществени имоти и бе осъден по-специално на 20 години лишаване от свобода. През юни 1987 г. Върховният съд потвърди присъдата и наложените му присъди. Решението на Върховния съд е окончателно и подлежи на изпълнение в съответствие с националното законодателство. Жалбоподателят е бил задържан под стража през юни 1986 г. и е започнал да изпълнява присъдата си през юни 1987 г. През януари 1991 г. жалбоподателят подава молба за преразглеждане на присъдата пред Върховния съд. На същата дата главният съдия на Върховния съд разпореди спиране на изпълнението на присъдата във връзка със здравословното състояние на жалбоподателя и той бе освободен. През декември 1992 г. Върховният съд отхвърли искането за преразглеждане и потвърди присъдата. Органите не можаха да намерят кандидата. През 2005 г. жалбоподателят обжалва пред президента на Република България с молба за помилване. През ноември 2007 г. Клеменси Комисията информира жалбоподателя, че не е необходимо да разглежда жалбата му, тъй като срокът за изпълнение на присъдата е изтекъл.

 

Жалбоподателят реши да се завърне в България. През януари 2008 г. той е бил задържан от полицията при пристигането му на летището във връзка с търсенето му. След това той е изпратен в затвора, за да му бъде назначен 20-годишен затвор през 1987 г.

 

Жалбоподателят подава жалба до прокуратурата, като твърди, че срокът на лишаване от свобода е изтекъл, за да изпълни присъдата му, и поиска освобождаването му. През февруари 2008 г. военният прокурор реши, че жалбоподателят трябва да изпълни останалата част от присъдата и че давностният срок не е изтекъл. Жалбите на жалбоподателя за това решение бяха отхвърлени. Жалбоподателят е освободен през май 2014 г.

 


ПРОБЛЕМИ НА ЗАКОНА

 


Относно изискванията на член 5, параграф 4 от Конвенцията. От престоя си в затвора януари 2008 г., жалбоподателят твърди, че давността за изпълнение на наказанието му е изтекла и че няма правни основания да лишава от свобода. Комисията за помилване по президентската администрация изрази същото мнение в отговор на жалбата на жалбоподателя за помилване през 2007 г. Въпреки това, прокуратурата, която има право да решава дали да бъде осъдена или не, се противопостави. Въпросът дали давностният срок е изтекъл за напускането на наказание на жалбоподателя, който има решаващо значение за законността на задържането му, не се счита в момента на присъдата през 1987 г. или по искане на жалбоподателя за преразглеждане през 1992. Съответно, вътрешното законодателство следва да предостави на жалбоподателя достъп до средство за защита, което отговаря на изискванията на член 5 § 4 от Конвенцията, така че този въпрос да може да бъде решен.

 

В българското законодателство не е предвидено съществуването на специална съдебна защита, която да оспори законността на лишаването от свобода след осъждане. Само органите на прокуратурата могат да решават въпроси, свързани с изпълнението на присъди. Решенията подлежат на надзор само от по-висшия прокурор, но не и от съдебен контрол. Прокурорът обаче не може да бъде считан за съд, който отговаря на изискванията на член 5 § 4 от Конвенцията. По същия начин, законът на държавата-ответник е имало обща процедура като Habeas корпус, който осигурява проверка на законосъобразността на задържането и освобождаването на съответното лице, в случай че задържането е обявено за незаконно.

 

По отношение на искането за обезщетение по член 2 (1) от Закона за държавната отговорност и общините за вреди, които са били променени с включването на правото на обезщетение по отношение на всяко нарушение на параграфи 1 - 4, на член 5 от Конвенцията влиза в сила на 15 декември 2012 , тази процедура, макар и потенциално да доведе до установяване на незаконосъобразност на задържането, не предвижда освобождаване на лице в случай на такова установяване.

 

С оглед на изложеното по-горе, жалбоподателят не е имал достъп по всяко време на задържането му от януари 2008 г. до май 2014 г. за средствата за правна защита, с която той може да получи потвърждение на законосъобразността на задържането му и освобождаване в случай на установяване на незаконосъобразността му.

 


РЕШЕНИЕ

 


Нарушението на изискванията на член 5 от Конвенцията (единодушно) е извършено по делото.

 

Съдът също така единодушно реши, че е имало нарушение на член на изискванията на параграф 5. 5 от Конвенцията, тъй като иск за обезщетение, предвидено в Закона за държавната отговорност, не може да се гарантира правото на жалбоподателя на обезщетение и друго средство да съществува в националното законодателство, би могъл да му предостави обезщетение за вреди, причинени в нарушение на член 5, параграф 4 от Конвенцията, преди или след приемането на настоящото решение.

 

 

 

КОМПЕНСАЦИЯ

 


При прилагането на член 41 от Конвенцията. Съдът присъди на жалбоподателя 6 000 евро за неимуществени вреди, искането за обезщетение за имуществени вреди бе отхвърлено.

 

В случая на ИП срещу България (решение от 19 януари 2017 г., жалба № 72936/14) Съдът също единодушно реши, че е налице нарушение на изискванията на чл. 5, ал. 4 от Конвенцията на основание, че жалбоподателят не би могъл да се възползва от съдебния контрол за законосъобразността на неговото задържане. Нарушението не е резултат от действията или бездействията на един от органите, посочени в член 2 от Закона за отговорността на държавата, но поради липсата в националното право на процедурата за съдебен контрол на задържането на жалбоподателя в място за временно пребиваване на младежи. Следователно искането за обезщетение по този закон не е достъпно и ефективно средство за защита, което може да предостави обезщетение на жалбоподателя по отношение на неговата жалба.

 

 

 

Източник на публикация: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/624-ivan-todorov-proti-bolgaria .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 19 January 2017 in the case of Ivan Todorov v. Bulgaria (application No. 71545/11).

 

In 2011, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was and communicated to Bulgaria.

 

In the case, the complaint on the absence of a remedy was successfully considered to determine whether the period of limitation of the applicant's expiry of the previously imposed punishment for the crime had expired. 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 April 1987, the applicant was found guilty of aiding and abetting public property abuse and was sentenced, in particular, to 20 years imprisonment. In June 1987, the Supreme Court upheld the verdict and sentences imposed on him. The decision of the Supreme Court was final and subject to enforcement in accordance with domestic law. The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in June 1986 and began serving his sentence in June 1987. In January 1991, the applicant submitted an application for review of the sentence to the Supreme Court. On the same date, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of the execution of the sentence in connection with the applicant's state of health and he was released. In December 1992, the Supreme Court rejected the application for review and upheld the conviction. The authorities were unable to locate the applicant. In 2005, the applicant appealed to the President of the Republic of Bulgaria with a request for pardon. In November 2007, the Clemency Commission informed the applicant that it was not necessary to examine his application, as the statute of limitations for the execution of the sentence had expired.

 

The applicant decided to return to Bulgaria. In January 2008, he was detained by the police on arrival at the airport in connection with his search for him. Subsequently, he was sent to prison to serve a 20-year prison term, appointed to him in 1987.

 

The applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor's office, claiming that the statute of limitations had expired in order to serve his term of imprisonment, and asked for his release. In February 2008, the military prosecutor ruled that the applicant had to serve the remainder of the sentence and that the limitation period had not expired. The applicant's complaints about this decision were rejected. The applicant was released in May 2014.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning the requirements of paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Convention. Since his imprisonment in January 2008, the applicant had insisted that the statute of limitations for the execution of his sentence had expired and that there were no legal grounds for his imprisonment. The pardon commission under the presidential administration expressed the same opinion in response to the applicant's pardon petition in 2007. However, the prosecutor's office, which was authorized to decide whether or not to serve a sentence, took the opposite position. The question of whether the statute of limitations had expired in order to serve the applicant's sentence, which was crucial to the legality of his deprivation of liberty, was not considered at the time of the sentencing in 1987 or when the applicant's application for review was reviewed in 1992. Accordingly, domestic legislation should provide the applicant with access to a remedy that satisfies the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention so that this issue can be resolved.

 

Bulgarian legislation did not provide for the existence of a special judicial remedy to challenge the lawfulness of imprisonment after conviction. Only the prosecution authorities could resolve issues related to the execution of sentences. The decisions were subject to supervision only by the superior prosecutor, but not to a judicial review. However, the prosecutor could not be considered a court that met the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Likewise, the legislation of the respondent State lacked a general procedure such as habeas corpus, which provides for the verification of the lawfulness of detention and the release of the person concerned if the detention was found to be unlawful.

 

As for the claim for compensation provided for in Article 2 (1) of the State and Municipalities Responsibility Act for causing damage, which was amended to include the right to compensation for any violation of Article 5 §§ 1 to 4 of the Convention and entered into force on 15 December 2012. , this procedure, although potentially could lead to the establishment of unlawfulness of detention, did not provide for the release of a person in the event of such an establishment.

 

In view of the foregoing, the applicant did not have access at any time to his detention from January 2008 to May 2014 to a judicial remedy by which he could verify the lawfulness of his detention and release if it was found to be unlawful.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.

 

The Court also unanimously found that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, since the compensation claim provided for in the State Liability Law could not ensure the applicant's right to compensation, and no other remedy existed in domestic law could to provide him with compensation for damage caused in violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, before or after the adoption of this Decision.

 

 

 

COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage was rejected.

 

In the case of IP v. Bulgaria (judgment of 19 January 2017, complaint No. 72936/14), the Court also unanimously decided that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on the ground that the applicant could not avail himself of the judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. The violation did not follow from the acts or omissions of one of the authorities mentioned in article 2 of the Law on State Responsibility, but because of the absence in domestic law of the procedure for judicial review of the applicant's detention in a temporary stay facility for young people. Consequently, the claim for compensation under this law was not an accessible and effective remedy capable of providing compensation to the applicant in respect of his complaint.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/625-ivan-todorov-v-bulgaria .

 

 

Η απόφαση του ΕΔΔΑ της 19ης Ιανουαρίου 2017 στην υπόθεση Kapsis και Danikas κατά Ελλάδας (καταγγελία αριθ. 52137/12).

 

Το 2012, οι υποψήφιοι βοήθησαν στην προετοιμασία της καταγγελίας. Η καταγγελία κοινοποιήθηκε στη συνέχεια στην Ελλάδα.

 

Στην περίπτωση αυτή, εξετάστηκε επιτυχώς η καταγγελία των προσφευγόντων για την αστική ευθύνη για τη δημοσίευση ενός άρθρου εφημερίδας στο οποίο η επίσημη γυναίκα ονομάστηκε "εντελώς άγνωστη". Η υπόθεση αφορούσε παραβίαση των όρων του άρθρου 10 της Σύμβασης για την Προάσπιση των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου και των Θεμελιωδών Ελευθεριών.

 

 

 

Επί της περιπτώσεως

 


Ο πρώτος αιτών ήταν δημοσιογράφος και πρώην ιδιοκτήτης ημερήσιας εφημερίδας, ο δεύτερος ήταν επίσης δημοσιογράφος και εργάστηκε στην ίδια εφημερίδα. Τον Δεκέμβριο του 2004 ο δεύτερος προσφεύγων δημοσίευσε ένα άρθρο στην εφημερίδα αυτή. Άρθρο τοποθετείται στη στήλη αφιερωμένη στα παρασκήνια πλευρά της πολιτικής σχετικά με το διορισμό του ηθοποιού RM στο συμβουλευτικό συμβούλιο για τις επιδοτήσεις του τμήματος θεάτρου του Υπουργείου Πολιτισμού. Τον Απρίλιο του 2005, ο R.M. υπέβαλε αγωγή αποζημιώσεως στο Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών εναντίον των δύο υποψηφίων και της συντάκτριας της εφημερίδας, υποστηρίζοντας ότι ήταν θύμα προσβολής και παραβίασης των προσωπικών της δικαιωμάτων.

 

Τον Ιούνιο του 2006, με τρεις κατηγορούμενους, εισπράχθηκε από κοινού ποσό 30.000 ευρώ υπέρ της RM. Το δικαστήριο σημείωσε ότι η χρήση των λέξεων "εντελώς άγνωστη" ξεπέρασε αποδεκτές επικρίσεις και δεν ήταν αντικειμενικά απαραίτητη για τον δημοσιογράφο να εκφράσει τη γνώμη του σχετικά με το διορισμό. Σημείωσε επίσης τη σημαντική συμβολή του ενάγοντος στο θέατρο και την παρουσίαση της χώρας στο εξωτερικό στον τομέα του πολιτισμού. Οι καταγγελίες κατά της απόφασης ήταν ανεπιτυχείς.

 


ΖΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΝΟΜΟΥ

 


Όσον αφορά την τήρηση των απαιτήσεων του άρθρου 10 της σύμβασης. Η είσπραξη αποζημιώσεων από τους αιτούντες συνιστούσε παρέμβαση στο δικαίωμά τους για ελευθερία έκφρασης. Αυτή η παρέμβαση προβλέπεται από το νόμο και επιδιώκει τον θεμιτό σκοπό της προστασίας της φήμης ή των δικαιωμάτων των άλλων.

 

Η έκφραση "εντελώς άγνωστη", ληφθείσα στο πλαίσιο, ήταν μια κρίσιμη αξία που δεν απαιτούσε απόδειξη. Αυτή η έκφραση δεν ήταν χωρίς πραγματική βάση, δεδομένου ότι το RM, ο οποίος ήταν ένας ηθοποιός, δεν έχει γίνει στο παρελθόν, δεν είναι δημόσιο αξίωμα, και το άρθρο δεν είχε ως στόχο τη διάδοση των πληροφοριών με τη στενή έννοια του όρου, αλλά υπήρχε ένα μέρος της στήλης σχετικά με πίσω από τα παρασκήνια της πολιτικής ζωής, γνωστό για το λόγο αυτό με έναν σαρκαστικό τόνο, στον οποίο περιέγραψε ορισμένους πολιτικούς και πολιτικά γεγονότα. Τα δικαστήρια της χώρας δεν εξέτασαν προβληματικά σχόλια στο γενικό πλαίσιο της υπόθεσης, προκειμένου να εκτιμήσουν την πρόθεση των αιτούντων. Η έκφραση "εντελώς άγνωστη" ακολουθήθηκε στην πραγματικότητα από μάλλον καλοπροαίρετα σχόλια για το διορισμό του R.M. Εθνικά δικαστήρια έχουν την έκφραση από το πλαίσιό της και κατέληξε στο συμπέρασμα ότι η φράση «δεν είναι γνωστό ένα ευρύ φάσμα ανθρώπων» θα ήταν αρκετό για τη δεύτερη προσφεύγουσα της έκφρασης. Ωστόσο, ο ρόλος των εθνικών δικαστηρίων σε τέτοιες διαδικασίες δεν είναι μέλος σε επισημαίνουν οι συγγραφείς τι στυλ θα πρέπει να χρησιμοποιήσει κατά την άσκηση του δικαιώματός τους στην κριτική, δεν έχει σημασία πόσο σκληρή ήταν η κριτική. Αντιθέτως, πρέπει να εξετάσουν εάν το πλαίσιο της υπόθεσης, το δημόσιο συμφέρον και η πρόθεση του δημιουργού δικαιολογούνταν από την πιθανή χρήση κάποιου βαθμού πρόκλησης ή υπερβολής. R.M. διορίστηκε μέλος του συμβουλευτικού συμβουλίου για κρατικές επιχορηγήσεις σε θέατρα, οπότε ο ρόλος της ήταν ουσιαστικά πολιτικός, με δημόσιες ευθύνες και δεν μπορούσε να θεωρηθεί "απλώς ιδιώτης". Τα πρόσωπα που συμμετείχαν στην υπόθεση ενεργούσαν έτσι σε ένα δημόσιο πλαίσιο και το άρθρο αυτό ήταν μέρος της συζήτησης για ένα θέμα γενικού ενδιαφέροντος. Αφορά την RM. αποκλειστικά ως μέλος του συμβουλευτικού συμβουλίου. Ως εκ τούτου, έπρεπε να αναμένει ότι ο διορισμός της θα αποτελέσει αντικείμενο ιδιαίτερης προσοχής εκ μέρους του Τύπου και θα μπορούσε να προκαλέσει σκληρή κριτική. Οι εκφράσεις που χρησιμοποίησε ο δεύτερος υποψήφιος δεν ήταν αδικαιολόγητα προσβλητικές. Τέλος, από τους εναγόμενους, συμπεριλαμβανομένων δύο αιτούντων, 30.000 ευρώ επιστράφηκαν από κοινού και εις ολόκληρον ως αποζημίωση στον R.M. Τα εθνικά δικαστήρια έλαβαν υπόψη τη φύση και τη σοβαρότητα της ζημίας που προκλήθηκε στον ενάγοντα, η κατάστασή του, την οικονομική θέση των κατηγορουμένων και τη συνταγματική αρχή της αναλογικότητας, δεν πρόκειται σε λεπτομέρειες, αλλά είναι, για παράδειγμα, προέβη σε ανάλυση της οικονομικής κατάστασης των αιτούντων.

 

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τα ανωτέρω, οι ελληνικές αρχές δεν προσκόμισαν κανένα βάσιμο και επαρκή λόγο για να δικαιολογήσουν τη χορήγηση αποζημίωσης στη RM και η κύρωση αυτή δεν ήταν ανάλογη προς τον επιδιωκόμενο θεμιτό σκοπό. Η απόφαση σε μια αστική υπόθεση κατά των προσφευγουσών δεν πληρούσαν μια «επιτακτική κοινωνική ανάγκη» και, ως εκ τούτου, δεν ήταν αναγκαία σε μια δημοκρατική κοινωνία.

 


ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ

 


Στην περίπτωση αυτή υπήρξε παραβίαση των απαιτήσεων του άρθρου 10 της Σύμβασης (εγκρίθηκε ομόφωνα).

 


ΑΠΟΖΗΜΙΩΣΗ

 


Κατά την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 41 της Σύμβασης. Το Δικαστήριο επιδίκασε κάθε αιτούντα ευρώ 2.000 για ηθική βλάβη, η διαπίστωση της παραβίασης αποτελεί επαρκή δίκαιη ικανοποίηση για την ηθική βλάβη.

 

 

 

Πηγή δημοσίευσης: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/626-kapsis-and-danikas-vv-greece .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 19 January 2017 in the case of Kapsis and Danikas v. Greece (application No. 52137/12).

 

In 2012, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. The application was subsequently communicated to Greece.

 

In the case, the applicants' complaint to bring them to civil liability for the publication of a newspaper article in which the official woman was named "completely unknown" was successfully considered. 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 first applicant was a journalist and former owner of a daily newspaper, the second was also a journalist and worked in the same newspaper. In December 2004 the second applicant published an article in this newspaper. The article, placed in a column devoted to the behind-the-scenes side of political life, concerned the appointment of the actress R.M. to the advisory council on subsidies of the theater department of the Ministry of Culture. In April 2005, R.M. filed a claim for damages to the Athens Court of First Instance against the two applicants and the editor of the newspaper, claiming that she was a victim of insult and violation of her personal rights.

 

In June 2006, with three defendants, a sum of 30,000 euros in favor of RM was jointly collected. The court noted that the use of the words "completely unknown" went beyond acceptable criticism and was not objectively necessary for the journalist to express his opinion on the appointment. He also noted the significant contribution of the plaintiff to theatrical art and the representation of the country abroad in the sphere of culture. Complaints against the decision were unsuccessful.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention. The recovery of compensation from the applicants constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression. This interference was provided by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others.

 

The expression "completely unknown", taken in context, was a value judgment that did not require proof. This expression was not without factual basis, because RM, who was an actress, did not hold any public positions in the past, and the article was not aimed at disseminating information in the strict sense of the word, but was part of a column on the behind-the-scenes side of political life, known for that reason in a sarcastic tone, in which she portrayed certain politicians and political events. The country's courts did not consider problematic comments in the general context of the case in order to assess the applicants' intention. The expression "completely unknown" was actually followed by rather benevolent comments on the appointment of R.M. The domestic courts took expression outside the context and concluded that the words "it is not known to a wide range of persons" would be sufficient for the second applicant to express an opinion. However, the role of the country's courts in such proceedings is not to indicate to the author what style he should use in exercising his right to criticism, however harsh the criticism may be. On the contrary, they should consider whether the context of the case, the public interest and the author's intention were justified by the possible use of some degree of provocation or exaggeration. R.M. was appointed a member of the advisory council for state subsidies to theaters, so her role was essentially political, with public responsibilities, and she could not be regarded as "just a private person." The persons participating in the case thus acted in a public context, and this article was part of the discussion on a matter of general interest. It concerned RM. exclusively as a member of the advisory council. Accordingly, in this capacity, she had to expect that her appointment would be the subject of close attention on the part of the press and could even provoke harsh criticism. The expressions used by the second applicant were not unreasonably offensive. Finally, from the defendants, including two applicants, 30,000 euros were jointly and severally recovered in compensation to R.M. The courts of the country took into account the nature and seriousness of the harm caused to the plaintiff, her status, the financial situation of the defendants and the constitutional principle of proportionality, without going into details, but they, for example, did not analyze the financial situation of the applicants.

 

In view of the foregoing, the Greek authorities did not provide any valid and sufficient reasons to justify the award of compensation to RM, and this sanction was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The decision on the civil case against the applicants did not meet the "urgent social need" and therefore was not necessary in a democratic society.

 


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 Court awarded each applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the finding of a violation of the Convention is sufficient compensation for pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/627-kapsis-and-danikas-v-greece .