Новости от 12 октября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the non-execution of decisions of domestic courts in favor of the applicant, 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 2007, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant, who lives in the city of Ufa, complained about the failure to execute the decisions of the domestic courts in his favor and about the absence of any effective legal remedies in the legislation of the Russian Federation in this regard.
On 14 February 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 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 property protection), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 2,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling of February 14, 2017 on the Nikitin case against the Russian Federation (аpplication No. 22185/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1077-nikitin-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the applicant's detention on suspicion of having committed a crime without documenting this fact. In the case of violations of the requirements of subparagraph "c" of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2005, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained that after being arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, he was detained at the police station from 15 to 20 June 2004 without documenting this fact.
On February 14, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person), and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicant 7 500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling of February 14, 2017 in the case of Denisenko v. Russia (аpplication N 18322/05).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1078-denisenko-c-russia .
In the case, the complaint of the applicant that her brother had been unlawfully detained and subjected to ill-treatment by the police officers was successfully considered, which resulted in his death in the Department of the Interior. The case has violated the requirements of Article 2 and Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2012, 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 village of Aksakovo of the Orenburg Region, complained about the death of her brother in a room occupied by the internal affairs department of the municipality of Buguruslan and the Buguruslan district, and claimed that he had been illegally detained and subjected to ill-treatment by police officers.
On 14 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) and 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in the substantive part and the requirements of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in procedural part, and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 50,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. As the complaint of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person) was closely related to the claims for violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court decided that it was not necessary to consider it separately.
ECHR judgment of February 14, 2017 in the case of Maslova v. Russia (аpplication No. 15980/12).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1079-maslova-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the inhuman conditions of detention in places of punishment (inadequate sanitary conditions, overcrowding, the absence of an airing system, etc.), and also that they did not have an effective remedy against the inhuman conditions of their detention. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2009, 2010, 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 (nine people) complained about the inhuman conditions of detention in places of punishment (inadequate sanitary conditions, overcrowding, lack of an airing system, etc.). The three applicants also claimed that they did not have an effective remedy against the inhuman conditions of their detention.
On February 7, 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 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) both in terms of conditions of detention and the lack of medical assistance, 13 of the Convention (right to effective domestic remedy) in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention, and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of € 90,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 5,000 to 15,500 euros.
ECHR Ordinance of February 7, 2017 on the case "Secretary and others (Sekretarev and Others) against the Russian Federation" (аpplications N 9678/09, 42122/09, 13886/10, 19115/10, 73499/10, 8797/11, 34310 / 12, 34310/12, 63933/12 and 63951/12).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1080-sekretarev-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the complaints of the applicants that they were deprived of the opportunity either personally or through a representative to represent their position in the court of appeal in the framework of the criminal proceedings. The case has violated the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2006, 2007, 2008 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, claimants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (10 people) complained that they were deprived of the opportunity either personally or through a representative to represent their position in an appellate court in criminal proceedings. All the applicants, with the exception of the third and fourth, were duly notified of their hearings, but none of them could attend the court hearings.
On February 7, 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 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) only in respect of the first, fourth and fifth applicants regarding the impossibility of their presence in the appellate court authorities in criminal proceedings, and ordered the respondent State to pay each of these applicants 4,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The Court considers that the status of the victim of the third applicant should be rejected.
Resolution of the ECHR of February 07, 2017 in the case of Marov and Others (Marov and Others) against the Russian Federation (аpplications N 47017/06, 23797/07, 10723/08, 24617/09, 28490/09, 30762/09, 58626 (09, 65993/10, 45047/11 and 40844/12).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1081-marov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the complaints of the applicants that they and their lawyers were refused to attend the consideration of their complaints in the court of appeal. The case has violated the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2006, 2007, 2008 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, claimants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (13 people) complained that they and their lawyers (with the exception of one of the applicants whose lawyer was present) were refused to be present at the examination of their complaint in the court of appeal. The tenth applicant also complained of a violation of the reasonable time of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicants also complained about the conditions of their detention, the unlawfulness of the detention, but the Court decided that these allegations were manifestly unfounded.
On February 7, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated only the requirement of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) in respect of the tenth applicant regarding a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, and ordered the respondent State to pay him 2,000 euros in damages.
Resolution of the ECHR of February 07, 2017 in the case of Zakhodyakin and Others (Zakhodyakin and Others) v. Russia (аpplications N 26401/06, 29258/06, 12149/07, 37061/07, 35903/08, 4874/09, 20343 / 09, 28877/09, 29514/09, 31466/09, 32934/10, 70306/11 and 59413/12).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1082-zakhodyakin-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about inadequate conditions of detention. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 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 applicant complained about the inadequate conditions of his detention in two different pre-trial detention centers in St. Petersburg. The Government admitted that in the first case there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), having offered to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of 4,935 euros, the applicant agreed.
On February 2, 2017 on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court accepted the conclusion of a settlement agreement between the parties on the first period of the applicant's detention, excluding the complaint in this part from further consideration. The European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) concerning the second period of the applicant's detention, and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicant 9,565 euros in compensation for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and court costs.
ECHR ruling of February 2, 2017 on the case of Tretyakov (Tretyakov) v. Russian Federation (аpplication N 62553/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1083-tretyakov-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention, as well as the fact that the judicial review of the reasonableness of his 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 2010, 2011, 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 (six people) complained about the excessive length of their detention pending trial. One applicant also complained that a judicial review of the validity of his detention did not meet the urgency criterion. In one case, due to the death of the applicant, the European Court allowed him to continue to represent his interests to family members (widow and son).
On February 2, 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 and Clause 4 of the Convention in respect of one of them, and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 14,300 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and court costs. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 1,000 to 2,700 euros.
ECHR ruling of February 02, 2017 in the case of Dzhabarov and Others (Dzhabarov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications N 51182/10, 62814/10, 34313/11, 10342/12, 32166/14 and 59613/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1084-dzhabarov-and-others-c-russia .
The case has successfully reviewed complaints about the maintenance of the applicants during court proceedings in criminal cases instituted against them in metal cells. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2014 and 2015, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (three people), residing respectively in the cities of Krasnoyarsk, Novocheboksarsk and in the Vologda region, complained that during the proceedings in their criminal cases they were kept in metal cells.
On January 31, 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 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) and ordered the respondent state to pay the first applicant EUR 3,000, 500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR judgment of January 31, 2017 in the case of Vorontsov and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 59655/14, 5771/15 and 7238/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1085-vorontsov-and-others-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined complaints about the lack of a proper investigation into the death of the applicants' spouses as a result of an accident. The case has violated the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2007, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants living in the Chechen Republic complained that the deaths of their husbands as a result of a traffic accident involving military personnel had not been properly investigated.
On January 31, 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 2 of the Convention (the right to life) in its substantive and procedural aspects and ordered the respondent state to pay in compensation for material damage 9,111 euros to the first applicant and 37,787 euros to the second, as well as 60,000 euros to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR Ordinance of January 31, 2017 on the case of Abubakarova and Midalishova (Abubakarova and Midalishova) v. Russia (аpplications N 47222/07 and 47223/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1086-abubakarova-and-midalishova-c-russia .
In the case, the complaints of the applicants who were on the wanted list, their late notification of court dates, and their late delivery to the court after the arrest were successfully examined. In the case of violation of the requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5, paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2011 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), who were on the wanted list, complained that they were not promptly notified of the dates of court hearings, and after the arrest, which was rendered by the courts in their absence, were not immediately brought to court.
On January 31, 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 of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention of the applicant and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) against the third applicant, and ordered the respondent State to pay 6,500 euros to the second and third applicants in respect of moral harm.
ECHR judgment of January 31, 2017 in the case of Vakhitov and Others (Vakhitov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications N 18232/11, 42945/11 and 31596/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1087-vakhitov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the complaint of the applicant for non-compliance with the procedure established by law during the consideration of the case. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2014, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant, a citizen of Uzbekistan living in the city of Moscow, claimed that he was detained for the purpose of extradition to Uzbekistan, where he could be subjected to torture. He also complained of non-compliance with the procedure established by law during the proceedings.
On January 26, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in this case the authorities failed to fulfill their obligations in accordance with Article 38 of the Convention (creating the necessary conditions for effective consideration of the complaint by the European Court) and violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention ( the prohibition of torture) in its substantive and procedural aspects, and ordered the authorities of the respondent state to pay the applicant 19,500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The European Court did not find a violation of Article 34 of the Convention (impeding the effective exercise of the right to complain).
ECHR ruling dated January 26, 2017 in the case of Khamidkariev v. Russia (аpplication No. 42332/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1088-khamidkariev-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the unlawful detention of the applicant and ill-treatment during his time in the police, which was discriminatory, the lack of effective domestic remedies in relation to his complaints about these circumstances. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3, clause 1 of Article 5 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 applicant, who lives in the city of Vladikavkaz, complained of his unlawful detention and ill-treatment during his time in the police. He argued that there were no effective domestic remedies in relation to his complaints about these circumstances, and that the unlawful actions of the police were discriminatory.
On January 17, 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) and Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person). the defendant to pay the mother of the applicant 19,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling dated January 17, 2017 in the case of Barakhoev (Barakhoyev) v. Russia (аpplication N 8516/08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1089-barakhoyev-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the excessive length of 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, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant, who lives in the city of Saransk, complained about the excessive length (one year, four months and 21 days) of his detention pending trial.
On 10 January 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 5 § 3 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 1,500 euros non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling of January 10, 2017 in the case of Rodkin v. Russia (аpplication N 63038/10).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1090-rodkin-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the applicant’s expulsion to the country of nationality, the failure to examine his complaints that if he were expelled he could be at risk of ill-treatment, the lack of effective remedies in relation to his complaint. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 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, born in 1988 in the city of Margilan, Republic of Uzbekistan, arrived in 2014 in the Russian Federation. He complained that the authorities did not consider his complaints that if he were expelled to Uzbekistan, he could be at risk of ill-treatment. He also complained about the lack of effective remedies in relation to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
On 10 January 2017, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), stating that the applicant should not be extradited or otherwise forcibly transferred from the Russian Federation to Uzbekistan or another country at the time of the convention proceedings.
Decision of the ECHR of January 10, 2017 in the case of “I.U. (I.U.) v. The Russian Federation” (аpplication No. 48917/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1091-i-u-c-russia .
