Новости от 11 октября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the cancellation in the order of supervision of court decisions made in favor of the applicant. In the case of violations of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2011, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In her complaint the applicant complained about the cancellation of the court decisions in her favor in 2008–2012, in the order of supervision.
On March 14, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to protection of property) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 5,000 euros in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling of March 14, 2017 in the case of Litvinchuk v. Russia (аpplication No. 5491/11).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1062-litvinchuk-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the non-execution of the court decision in favor of the applicant, a violation of property rights, the lack of effective domestic remedies. The case has violated the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6, Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
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 the city of Tambov, complained about the non-enforcement of the court decision, according to which the municipal unitary enterprise was obliged to pay her 348 euros. The applicant claimed that the failure to execute the decision resulted in a violation of the right to property and that she did not have effective domestic remedies in connection with the violations.
On 14 March 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to property protection), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 348 euros in respect of pecuniary damage and 2,000 euros in compensation for moral damages about harm.
ECHR ruling of March 14, 2017 in the case of Karpesh v. Russia (аpplication N 26920/09).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1063-karpesh-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the complaint of the applicant, who had a lifelong disability, about the lack of adequate quality medical care and inhuman conditions both in the place of detention and in the place where the sentence was served. The case did not violate the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in terms of the quality of medical care. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in relation to the conditions of the applicant's detention.
In 2010, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant, who had a lifelong disability, complained about the failure to provide adequate medical care and inhuman conditions both at the place of detention and at the place where the sentence was served.
On March 7, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in this case the authorities did not violate the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) regarding the quality of medical care, by violating the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention regarding conditions of detention applicant in custody. The claimant did not submit claims for fair compensation.
ECHR ruling of March 7, 2017 on the case of Vinogradov (Vinogradov) v. Russia (аpplication N 27122/10).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1064-vinogradov-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the ban imposed on the applicant's entry into the Russian Federation without specifying specific reasons, violating the applicant's right to family life, the lack of effective domestic remedies. The case has violated the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2015, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant, who is a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, complained that the ban on entry into the Russian Federation without specifying specific reasons violated his right to family life and that he did not have effective domestic remedies in this regard.
On March 7, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for private and family life) and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicant 12,500 euros as compensation moral harm.
ECHR ruling of March 7, 2017 in the case of Kamenov (v. Russian Federation) (аpplication No. 17570/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1065-kamenov-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the complaint about the abduction of the applicants' relative by the representatives of the state and the failure to conduct an effective investigation of this circumstance. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2008, complainants were assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaint, the applicants (seven people) living in the Republic of Ingushetia complained about the disappearance of their relative in January 2006 after his abduction by state agents and about the failure to conduct an effective investigation into this circumstance. They also complained about the moral suffering caused to them as a result of the disappearance of their close relative and the illegality of his detention, as well as the lack of available remedies for these violations.
On 21 February 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 2 (right to life) in its substantive and procedural aspects, 3 (prohibition of torture) in respect of the applicants, 5 (right to liberty and security of person) in relation to the applicants' abducted close relative, 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy), taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The European Court ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of 68,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and court costs.
ECHR judgment of February 21, 2017 in the case of Kushtova and Others (Kushtova and Others) v. Russia (N 2) (аpplication No. 60806/08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1066-kushtova-and-others-c-russia-n-2 .
The case was successfully considered by the applicants for the excessive length of their detention pending trial. The case has violated the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 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 excessive length of their detention pending trial. The three applicants also argued that the courts’s consideration of the lawfulness of their detention did not meet the urgency criterion. One applicant complained that it was impossible to obtain compensation for his unlawful detention.
On February 16, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of the person) regarding all applicants regarding the excessive length of their detention the defendant to pay in respect of pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and court costs to the first applicant 5,200 euros, to the second 8,200, to the third 1,400, to the fourth 2,900, to the fifth 6,500 euros.
ECHR judgment of February 16, 2017 in the case of Khasanova and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 77153/13, 26448/15, 7219/16, 11760/16 and 13928/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1067-khasanova-and-others-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 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 (four people) complained about the inadequate conditions of their detention. The third and fourth applicants also complained about the lack of effective remedies regarding the inadequate conditions of detention.
On February 16, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, and the third and fourth applicants were also found to have a violation of Article 13 right to an effective domestic remedy). The European Court ordered the respondent State to pay 7,500 euros to the first applicant, 9,300 euros to the second, 6,500 euros to the third, 6,500 euros to the fourth.
ECHR ruling of February 16, 2017 in the case of Rublev and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 62594/15, 19657/16, 31823/16 and 31829/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1068-rublev-and-others-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined complaints of inhuman conditions of detention and the lack of effective domestic remedies. 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 and 2014, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (three people) complained about the inhuman conditions of detention. The first and third applicants also complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies in this regard.
On February 16, 2017, on the complaints lodged 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) in respect of the first and third applicants, and ordered the respondent Government to pay the applicants a total of EUR 27,800 in respect of pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 7,300 to 12,500 euros.
Resolution of the ECHR of February 16, 2017 in the case of Kolomiyets and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 59182/13, 78232/13 and 8176/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1069-kolomiyets-and-others-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the excessive length of pre-trial detention, the lack of effective domestic remedies, and that the judicial review of the validity of the detention did not meet the urgency criterion. The case of violation of the requirements of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013 and 2015, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints the applicants (five people) complained about the excessive length of the detention pending trial. Some applicants complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies, as well as the fact that the judicial review of the validity of the detention did not meet the urgency criterion.
On February 16, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person) in relation to all applicants, Clause 4 of Article 5 and Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) against some of the applicants, and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of € 11,600 in compensation for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 1,000 to 4,000 euros.
ECHR ruling of February 16, 2017 in the case of Fedorov and Others (Fedorov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications N 50483/07, 21974/09, 53102/10, 66061/13 and 8351/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1070-fedorov-and-others-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the excessive length of the pre-trial detention, as well as the fact that the judicial review of the reasonableness of their detention did not meet the urgency criterion. The case of violation of the requirements of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2016, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints the applicants (five people) complained about the excessive length of the detention pending trial. The first and fifth applicants also complained that the judicial review of the reasonableness of their detention did not meet the urgency criterion.
On February 16, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of the person) in respect of all claimants Clause 4 of the Convention regarding the first and the fifth applicants, and ordered the respondent Government to pay the applicants a total of 29,500 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 1,000 to 7,500 euros.
ECHR judgment of February 16, 2017 in the case of Kotov and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 39399/08, 39554/08, 45510/09, 21744/10 and 23272/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1071-kotov-and-others-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the excessive length of pre-trial detention, the lack of effective remedies, the excessive length of the proceedings in their criminal cases, and that the judicial review of the reasonableness of the detention did not meet the urgency criterion. The case has violated the requirements of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5, paragraph 1 of Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2005, 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 excessive length of the detention pending trial. Some applicants complained about the impossibility of participating in civil proceedings, the absence of effective remedies, the excessive length of the proceedings in their criminal cases, and that the judicial review of the validity of the detention did not meet the urgency criterion.
On February 16, 2017 on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person) in relation to all applicants and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to fair trial), article 5, paragraph 4, and article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) against some applicants. The European Court ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of € 23,700 in respect of pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and court costs. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 1,300 to 8,500 euros.
Resolution of the ECHR of February 16, 2017 in the case of Vikharev and Others (Vikharev and Others) v. Russia (аpplications No. 32357/05, 49012/13, 42110/15, 1827/16, 8773/16 and 16417/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1072-vikharev-and-others-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention. The case has violated the requirements of article 3, clauses 3 and 4 of clause 5, clause 1 and clause 3 of clause 3 of clause 3, clauses 13 and 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2005, 2007 and 2009, 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 inadequate conditions of their detention. Some applicants also complained about inappropriate conditions of transfer, excessive length of detention, inability to participate in civil proceedings, obstacles to filing a complaint with the European Court, lack of effective remedies for inhuman conditions of detention.
On February 16, 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 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) due to the conditions of detention of all applicants, as well as the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, paragraphs 3 and 4 Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person), paragraph 1 and subparagraph "c" of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective domestic remedy) and 34 Co. inventions (prohibition to prevent individual complaints) for some applicants. The European Court ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of € 123,050 in compensation for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and court costs. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 5,000 to 25,000 euros.
Resolution of the ECHR of February 16, 2017 in the case of Chernov and Others (Chernov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications No. 2199/05, 15456/05, 29127/06, 13451/07, 25894/09, 41440/09, 41687 / 09 and 62796/09).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1073-chernov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered complaints of non-execution and excessive length in the execution of judicial acts issued in favor of the applicants, the respondents for which were state or municipal unitary enterprises, the lack of effective remedies. The case has violated the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6, Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to 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 complainants complained about the non-enforcement or excessive length of time in the execution of court decisions in their favor, the respondent for which were state or municipal unitary enterprises. The applicants also claimed that they did not have effective remedies in respect of the said allegations.
On 16 February 2017, in the complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to protection of property), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of 202,531 euros in compensation for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and judicial remedies gatherings. The applicants were awarded various amounts from € 6,315 to € 96,636.
Resolution of the ECHR of February 16, 2017 in the case of Mamedov and Others (Mamedov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications N 16264/09, 54547/10, 60362/10, 75556/10, 1990/11, 12511/11).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1074-mamedov-and-others-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the inhuman conditions of detention in remand prisons caused by large overcrowding in the cells. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2010, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the complainant complained about the inhuman conditions in remand prisons caused by overcrowding in the cells.
On February 14, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy), taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention , in respect of each applicant, and ordered the respondent Government to pay EUR 6,250 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the first applicant, and EUR 1,245 to the second.
The ECHR judgment of February 14, 2017 in the case of Lobkov and Rassolov (Russian Federation) v. Russia (аpplications N 43215/10 and 56270/10).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1075-lobkov-and-rassolov-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the lack of adequate medical care in places where the sentence was served, leading to the death of the applicant's spouse, and the failure to conduct a sufficient and effective investigation into the death. The case has violated the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2011, 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 Orenburg, is a widow, her husband died in 2010, serving a prison sentence. The applicant complained that the authorities of the Russian Federation did not provide her husband with adequate medical care in places where the sentence was served and that they were responsible for his suffering and death. She also claimed that the investigation into the death of her husband was not sufficient and effective.
On 14 February 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (the right to life) both in its substantive and procedural aspects and that there was no need to consider a complaint of violation Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 24,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Resolution of the ECHR of February 14, 2017 in the case of Karakhanyan (v. Karakhanyan) against the Russian Federation (аpplication No. 24421/11).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1076-karakhanyan-c-russia .