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

Новости от 08 октября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 08.10.2018 10:02

 

The case was successfully considered a complaint of non-compliance with the criterion of urgency of a judicial review of the reasonableness of the applicant's detention. The case has violated the requirements of paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

n 2011, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

In his complaint the applicant complained that the judicial review of the reasonableness of his detention did not meet the urgency criterion.

On 25 April 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 5 § 4 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 2,500 euros non-pecuniary damage.

Decision of the ECHR of April 25, 2017 in the case of Solovey v. Russia (аpplication N 24157/11).


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1042-solovey-c-russia .

 

 

The case was successfully considered a complaint about the deprivation of the applicant's apartment, of which he was a bona fide purchaser. 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 2009, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the claimant, who was a bona fide purchaser, complained that he had been deprived of an apartment, which had previously been sold by fraud, but that the claimant was not aware of anything when buying it. The complainant also claimed that his eviction constituted a violation of his right to respect for his private life.

 

On 11 April 2017, on a complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to property protection) and that there is no need to consider a complaint of violation of Article 8 of the Convention ( respect for private and family life), obliging the respondent Government to pay the applicant 1,518 euros in respect of pecuniary damage and 1,500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

ECHR ruling of April 11, 2017 in the case of Strekalev v. Russia (аpplication N 21363/09).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1043-strekalev-c-russia .

 

 

The case was successfully considered a complaint of ill-treatment of the complainant by police officers with a view to obtaining confessions, failure to conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment of the complainant. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2008, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the complainant complained of ill-treatment by officers of the internal affairs bodies in order to extract a confession and that no effective investigation had been carried out in this connection.

 

On April 11, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in its substantive and procedural aspects, and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicant 20 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

ECHR ruling of April 11, 2017 in the case of Morgunov v. Russia (аpplication N 32546/08).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1044-morgunov-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 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 excessive length of their detention pending trial.

 

On April 6, 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 5 § 3 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 15,000 compensation for moral damage, material damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 1,000 to 4,100 euros.

 

Resolution of the ECHR of April 6, 2017 in the case of Nosenko and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 6116/10, 53833/10, 1164/15, 1405/15, 10164/15 and 42708/15).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1045-nosenko-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The case was successfully considered by the applicants for the excessive length of their detention pending trial. The case did not violate paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2010 and 2012, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants complained about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. The first applicant also complained that the appeal proceedings about the lawfulness of his detention had been carried out in his absence and in the absence of his lawyer. The second applicant submitted that the examination of his detention complaint did not meet the urgency criterion.

 

On April 6, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities did not violate the requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person), but violated the requirements of Clause 4 of Article 5 of the Convention, and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 2,500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and court costs.

 

ECHR ruling of April 6, 2017 in the case of Dudnichenko and Waes (Russian Federation) against the Russian Federation (аpplications N 49507/10 and 76349/12).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1046-dudnichenko-and-waes-c-russia .

 

 

The case was successfully considered the complaints of the applicants that they were not provided with the opportunity for personal participation in the consideration of civil law disputes, of which they were parties. In the case of a violation of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2011 and 2012, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (seven people), who were in custody during the period relating to the circumstances of the case, complained that they were not provided with the opportunity for personal participation in the consideration of civil law disputes to which they were parties.

 

On April 6, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 1,500 euros as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

Resolution of the ECHR of April 6, 2017 in the case of Frolov and Others (Frolov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications N 47485/11, 51072/11, 52914/11, 53528/11, 68515/11, 5508/12 and 6205 /12).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1047-frolov-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The case was successfully considered the complaints of the applicants that they were not provided with the opportunity for personal participation in the consideration of civil law disputes, of which they were parties. In the case of a violation of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2009, 2010 and 2011, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (five people), who were in custody during the period relating to the circumstances of the case, complained that they were not provided with the opportunity for personal participation in the consideration of civil law disputes to which they were parties.

 

On April 6, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 1,500 euros as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

Resolution of the ECHR of April 6, 2017 in the case of Biryukov and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 46892/09, 17041/10, 23559/10, 72268/10 and 29897/11).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1048-biryukov-and-others-c-russia-2 .

 

 

The case was successfully considered the complaints of the applicants that they were not provided with the opportunity for personal participation in the consideration of civil law disputes, of which they were parties. In the case of a violation of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2012, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (seven people), who were in custody during the period relating to the circumstances of the case, complained that they were not provided with the opportunity for personal participation in the consideration of civil law disputes to which they were parties.

 

On April 6, 2017 on complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court, rejecting the unilateral declarations of the authorities of the Russian Federation, unanimously decided that in this case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent state to pay each applicant 1,500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

ECHR Ordinance of April 6, 2017 in the case of Orlov and Others (Orlov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications No. 36907/12, 40782/12, 42855/12, 42940/12, 43317/12, 68297/12 and 72157 /12).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1049-orlov-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The case was successfully considered the complaints of the applicants that they were not provided with the opportunity for personal participation in the consideration of civil law disputes, of which they were parties. The case has violated the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2013, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (eight people), who during the period related to the circumstances of the case, appeared to be in custody, complained that they were not provided with the opportunity for personal participation in the consideration of civil law disputes, of which they were parties.

 

On April 6, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 1,500 euros as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

Resolution of the ECHR of April 6, 2017 in the case of Mikhaylov and Others (Mikhaylov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications N 2421/13, 6069/13, 8299/13, 19288/13, 22285/13, 31713/13, 41291 / 13 and 45958/13).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1050-mikhaylov-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The case was successfully considered the complaints of the applicants that they were not provided with the opportunity for personal participation in the consideration of civil law disputes, of which they were parties. The case has violated the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2008, 2011 and 2012, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (eight people), who during the period related to the circumstances of the case, appeared to be in custody, complained that they were not provided with the opportunity for personal participation in the consideration of civil law disputes, of which they were parties.

 

On April 6, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 1,500 euros as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

Resolution of the European Court of Human Rights dated April 6, 2017 in the case of Poberezhyev and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 11127/08, 4100/11, 8795/11, 25158/11, 27653/11, 12247/12, 31488 / 12 and 32000/12).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1051-poberezhyev-and-others-c-russia .