Новости от 05 октября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The case was successfully considered the applicant's complaint about the non-execution of a court decision rendered in her favor, within a reasonable time. In the case of violations of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In 2009, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In her complaint, the applicant, who lives in Vladimir, complained about the non-execution of a court decision in her favor, within a reasonable time (payments were received in more than two years).
On 16 May 2017, on a complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to property protection), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 2,500 euros as a fair compensation.
ECHR ruling of May 16, 2017 on the case of Yagodnikova (Yagodnikova) v. Russia (аpplication N 40671/09).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1012-yagodnikova-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the arrest of the applicant’s vehicle and the goods transported by the customs officers due to the lack of registration of the vehicle, to the applicant’s payment of money for the return of his property. The case has violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2011, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant, who was an entrepreneur, was transporting goods to one of the cities in the territory of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika, but was stopped by persons who introduced themselves as customs officers who arrested his car and goods due to the lack of registration of the vehicle. Further, the applicant had to pay 1,320 euros for the return of his property. The applicant claimed that such actions constituted a violation of his property rights.
On May 9, 2017, on a complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court, by six votes in favor and one against, ruled that in this case the authorities of the Republic of Moldova did not violate any provisions of the Convention, the authorities of the Russian Federation violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to protection of property), and ordered the authorities of the Russian Federation to pay the applicant 1,320 euros in respect of pecuniary damage and 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
A special dissenting opinion on this case was expressed by Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation).
Resolution of the ECHR dated May 09, 2017 in the case of Paduret (Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation) (аpplication N 26626/11).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1013-paduret-c-republic-of-moldova-and-russia .
The case was successfully considered complaints about the inhuman conditions of the applicants' detention in places of serving the sentence. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2010, 2011 and 2015, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (eight people) complained about the inhuman conditions of detention in the places where the sentence was served.
On May 4, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicants a total of EUR 95,500 in compensation for moral harm material damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 5,000 to 23,300 euros.
ECHR Ordinance of May 4, 2017 on the case of Kalyakanov and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 22872/10, 32203/10, 32209/10, 41192/10, 45844/11, 33684/15, 34832 / 15 and 37434/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1014-kalyakanov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered complaints about the inhuman conditions of detention of the applicants in places where the sentence was served, the lack of effective remedies. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3, 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2010, 2011 and 2015, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (six people) complained about the inhuman conditions of detention in the places where the sentence was served. The applicants also claimed that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.
On May 4, 2017, on complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) against all applicants, and ordered the State - the respondent to pay the applicants a total of EUR 41,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 1,000 to 25,000 euros.
ECHR judgment of May 4, 2017 in the case of Tsibakov and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 22461/10, 19416/11, 66011/11, 26995/15, 35160/15 and 40325/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1015-tsibakov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered complaints about the inhuman conditions of detention of the applicants in places where the sentence was served, the lack of effective remedies. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3, 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2012 and 2014, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (10 people) complained about the inhuman conditions of detention in the places where the sentence was served. The five applicants also claimed that they did not have an effective remedy in that regard.
On May 4, 2017, on the complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) in relation to all applicants and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) in respect of five applicants , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of EUR 87,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 2 500 to 15 000 euros.
ECHR judgment of May 4, 2017 in the case of Ustinov and Others (Ustinov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications No. 18046/12, 1771/14, 2507/14, 2788/14, 3069/14, 3361/14, 5779 / 14, 42337/14, 51543/14 and 51955/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1016-ustinov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered by the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention in places where the sentence was served, some of the applicants also complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the lack of effective remedies for inhuman conditions of detention. In the case of violations of the requirements of Articles 3 and 13, paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (six people) complained about the inhuman conditions of detention in the places where the sentence was served. Some of the applicants also complained about the excessive length of the pre-trial detention and the lack of effective remedies for inhuman conditions of detention.
On May 4, 2017, on complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) in relation to all applicants and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) and paragraph 3 of article 5 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person) in relation to some applicants. The European Court ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of EUR 35,250 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 5,000 to 8,750 euros.
ECHR judgment of May 4, 2017 in the case of Serov and Others (Serov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications N 9992/12, 12214/13, 54965/15, 3330/16, 19172/16 and 21267/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1017-serov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered by the applicants for the excessive length of their detention pending trial. The case has violated the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2010, complainants were assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaint, the applicants (four people) complained about the excessive length of their detention pending trial.
On May 4, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person) in respect of all applicants, and ordered the respondent Government to pay each applicant 5,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and court costs.
Resolution of the ECHR of May 4, 2017 in the case of Dayanov and Others v. Russia (аpplication No. 9668/10).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1018-dayanov-and-others-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the inhuman conditions of detention in places where the sentence was served, as well as the fact that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2013, 2014 and 2015, complainants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (11 people) complained about the inhuman conditions of detention in the places where the sentence was served. The applicants also claimed that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.
On May 4, 2017, on complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) against all applicants, and ordered - the respondent to pay the applicants a total of EUR 88,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 3,900 to 18,300 euros.
ECHR Ordinance of May 4, 2017 in the case of Shestakov and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 78378/13, 33307/14, 33405/14, 33600/14, 37789/14, 38078/14 and 51194 /15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1019-shestakov-and-others-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the inhuman conditions of detention in places where the sentence was served, as well as the fact that they did not have effective remedies in this regard. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (nine people) complained about the inhuman conditions of detention in the places where the sentence was served. The six applicants also claimed that they did not have effective remedies in that regard.
On May 4, 2017, on the complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) in respect of all applicants and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) in respect of six applicants , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of EUR 99,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 3,200 to 21,500 euros.
ECHR judgment of May 4, 2017 in the case of Lobzin and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 71066/10, 36533/11, 24248/12, 4607/15, 14087/15, 31054/15, 35338 / 15, 38263/15 and 46820/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1020-lobzin-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered by the applicants' complaints about the inhuman conditions of detention in places where the sentence was served, and also that they did not have effective remedies in this regard. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2014, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (10 people) complained about the inhuman conditions of detention in the places where the sentence was served. The six applicants also claimed that they did not have effective remedies in that regard.
On May 4, 2017, on the complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) in respect of all applicants and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) in respect of six applicants , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of € 96,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 5,000 to 15,000 euros.
ECHR judgment of May 4, 2017 in the case of Suchkov and Others (Suchkov and Others) v. Russia (аpplication No. 6496/14, 8185/14, 9962/14, 10447/14, 11990/14, 17857/14, 21159 / 14, 22581/14, 23057/14 and 30097/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1021-suchkov-and-others-c-russia .