Новости от 24 июля 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 29 марта 2018 года по делу "Арсентьев и другие (Arsentyev and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 17970/10, 63005/16, 67558/16, 69128/16, 71484/16 и 75363/16).
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 отношении всех заявителей.
В 2010 и 2016 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
В своих жалобах заявители (шесть человек) жаловались на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда.
29 марта 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность) в отношении всех заявителей, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 13 600 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/450-arsentyev-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 29 March 2018 in the case of Arsentyev and Others v. Russia (applications no. 17970/10, 63005/16, 67558/16, 69128/16, 71484/16 and 75363/16).
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 respect of all applicants.
In 2010 and 2016, 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 (six) complained of the excessive length of pre-trial detention.
On 29 March 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) against all applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 13,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/451-arsentyev-and-others-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 29 марта 2018 года по делу "Орлов и другие (Orlov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 39680/08, 44358/08 и 16337/10).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации и на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требования пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод и статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции.
В 2008 и 2010 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 и на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.
29 марта 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), отсутствует необходимость рассматривать жалобу на нарушение статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 1 900 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/452-orlov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
ECHR Ordinance of 29 March 2018 in the case of Orlov and Others v. Russia (applications no. 39680/08, 44358/08 and 16337/10).
In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation and the fact that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case involved a violation of the requirements 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 2008 and 2010, 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-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation and the fact that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.
On 29 March 2018, on the basis of 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) a complaint of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy), and ordered the respondent State to pay 1,900 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicants.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/453-orlov-and-others-v-russia-3 .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 29 марта 2018 года по делу "Прохоренко и другие (Prokhorenko and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 12204/15, 63371/16 и 77886/16).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также указывали на то, что 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 и статьи 13 Конвенции в отношении некоторых заявителей.
В 2015 и 2016 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
В своих жалобах заявители (три человека) жаловались на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. Отдельные заявители также указывали на то, что не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.
29 марта 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 31 000 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/454-prokhorenko-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 29 March 2018 in the case of Prokhorenko and Others v. Russia (applications N 12204/15, 63371/16 and 77886/16).
In the case, the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, and certain applicants also pointed out 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 and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of certain applicants.
In 2015 and 2016, 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 inhuman conditions of detention. Individual claimants also indicated that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.
On 29 March 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 EUR 31,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/455-prokhorenko-and-others-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 29 марта 2018 года по делу "Шимохин и другие (Shimokhin and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 9428/17, 12107/17, 12152/17, 12470/17, 14245/17, 28740/17, 28845/17 и 31597/17).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также указывали на то, что 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 и статьи 13 Конвенции в отношении некоторых заявителей.
В 2017 году заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
В своих жалобах заявители (восемь человек) жаловались на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. Отдельные заявители также указывали на то, что не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.
29 марта 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 47 700 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/456-shimokhin-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 29 March 2018 in the case of Shimokhin and Others v. Russia (applications no. 9428/17, 12107/17, 12152/17, 12470/17, 14245/17, 28740/17, 28845 / 17 and 31597/17).
In the case, the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, and certain applicants also pointed out 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 and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of certain applicants.
In 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 inhuman conditions of detention. Individual claimants also indicated that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.
On 29 March 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 applicants 47,700 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/457-shimokhin-and-others-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 29 марта 2018 года по делу "Ласточкин и другие (Lastochkin and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 7121/15, 56307/16, 10/17, 16113/17, 19991/17, 20530/17 и 24209/17).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы 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 2015, 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 чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда.
29 марта 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность) в отношении всех заявителей, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 17 800 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/458-lastochkin-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 29 March 2018 in the case of Lastochkin and Others v. Russia (applications no. 7121/15, 56307/16, 10/17, 16113/17, 19991/17, 20530/17 and 24209 / 17).
Complaints on the excessive length of pre-trial detention were successfully reviewed. There has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 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 (seven) complained of the excessive length of pre-trial detention.
On 29 March 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) against all the applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 17,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/459-lastochkin-and-others-v-russia .
AİHM'nin 23 Mayıs 2017 tarihli kararı Sarigul - Türkiye davasında (28691/05 no'lu şikayet).
2005 yılında başvuran, şikayetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.
Durumda, cezaevi idaresinin eserinin yazısının mahpustan çıkarılması için başvurduğu gerekçenin belirsizliğine ilişkin şikayet başarılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Dava, İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunmasına İlişkin Sözleşme'nin 10. maddesinin şartlarının ihlal edildiğini içeriyordu.
OLAYIN DURUMU
2004 yılında cezaevinde iken, başvuru o yayının amacıyla cezaevi dışına gönderildiğini gerçeğine cezaevi idaresinin romanının taslağını gönderdi. Hapishane yönetimi, eserin normal bir mektup olarak nitelendirilmesiyle, esirlerin yazışmalarının denetimi bağlamında (yaklaşık 200 sayfa) makaleyi incelemiştir. yönetim metin yasadışı bölücü örgüt desteklediğini bildirmiştir ve polis bunu çekilme kararı kadınlar, genel ahlaka ve inançların yönelik ifadeleri de dahil olmak üzere, hakaret, müstehcen ve uygunsuz bir dil, tuttu. 2006 yılında, savcının başvurucu aleyhindeki suçlamayı reddetme kararının ardından, yazı kendisine iade edilmiştir.
HUKUK SORUNLARI
Dava ziyade itiraz bildirimi Sözleşmesi temelinde ikinci pozisyona gönderildiği halde, yazışmalar (Madde 8) için saygı hakkının açısından, ifade (Madde 10) özgürlüğü açısından incelenir düşünmektedir.
Disiplin Kurulu metin yazışmalar için önceden belirlenmiş bir kontrol listesine göre uygunsuz kelimeler ve ifadeler içeren tek açıklayan, el yazması çekilme başvuru için kullanılabilir hale doğrudan veya herhangi bir yasal zemine bakın vermedi.
kurallar onun sınırlarının belirsizlik bulunmaktadır mahkumların yazışma izlenmesini düzenleyen ve "yanlış" olanı tanımlamak etmediğini hatırlatarak Tahmin edilebilirlik şartı (bkz karşılayamamaktadır. Avrupa Adalet Divanı "Türkiye'de karşı Tang" (Tan v çözünmesi. Türkiye 3 Temmuz 2007 tarihli ve 9460/03 sayılı şikayetle, Mahkeme mevcut davada benzer bir sonuca varmıştır. Bu nedenle müdahale, "yasa tarafından öngörülmüş" değildi.
KARAR
Söz konusu davada, Sözleşme'nin 10. maddesinin (oybirliğiyle kabul edilen) gerekliliklerinin ihlali söz konusudur.
Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/444-sarigul-turkiye-davasinda .
The ECHR judgment of 23 May 2017 in the case of Sarigul v. Turkey (application No. 28691/05).
In 2005, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.
In the case, the complaint on the uncertainty of the grounds, to which the prison administration referred for removing the manuscript of his novel from the prisoner, 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
In 2004, while in prison, the applicant handed over the manuscript of the novel to the prison administration so that it was sent outside the prison for publication. The prison administration examined the manuscript (about 200 pages) in the context of supervision of prisoners' correspondence, referring to it as a regular letter. The administration, concluding that the text supported an illegal separatist organization and contained insults to the police, obscene and inappropriate vocabulary, including statements against women, public morals and beliefs, decided to withdraw it. In 2006, after the prosecutor's decision to dismiss the charge against the applicant, the manuscript was returned to him.
ISSUES OF LAW
The Court considers that the case is to be examined in terms of freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention), and not from the point of view of the right to respect for correspondence (Article 8 of the Convention), even though the notice of the complaint was sent under the second provision of the Convention.
The Disciplinary Council did not directly refer to any legal basis, making an order for the withdrawal of the applicant's manuscript, explaining only that the text contained inappropriate words and expressions in accordance with a pre-established checklist for correspondence.
Recalling that the rules governing the control of correspondence of detainees that do not provide certainty in part of its limits and do not define what is "inadequate" can not meet the requirement of predictability (see Tan v. Turkey ) of 3 July 2007, complaint No. 9460/03), the Court has reached a similar conclusion in the present case. Intervention, therefore, was not "prescribed by law".
DECISION
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (unanimously adopted).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/445-sarigul-v-turkey .
AİHM'in 23 Mayıs 2017 tarihli kararı Cevikel - Türkiye davasında (23121/15 no'lu şikayet).
2015 yılında şikayetin hazırlanmasında başvuru sahibine yardımcı olunmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.
Dava, terörist eylemler veya terörle mücadele tedbirleri nedeniyle ortaya çıkan zarar için tazminat almak amacıyla başvuran tarafından yetkililere karşı açılan yargılamanın uzunluğu hakkında bir şikayette bulunulmuştur. İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunması Sözleşmesi'nin 6 § 1 maddesinin ihlali söz konusudur.
OLAYIN DURUMU
21 Aralık 2006 Başvuru ona göre, bu terör ya terörle mücadele önlemlerinin eylemler sonucu oluşan hasar, tazminat elde etmek için Türk makamlarına karşı dava açmıştır. Komisyona itiraz sonrasında Kanun N 5233 uyarınca kurulan ve idari mahkemeler başvuranın başvuru Telafisi Komisyonu, idari mahkemeler ve Anayasa Mahkemesi'nde dava süresine Avrupa Mahkemesi'ne şikayet 14 Nisan 2015 hükmetti Anayasa Mahkemesine bireysel şikayette bulunmuştur.
HUKUK SORUNLARI
(a) Uygulanabilirlik. terörizm veya terörle mücadele önlemlerinin eylemlerine neden olduğu iddia edilen zararlar için anlaşmazlık konusunda tazminat elbette, AİHS'nin 6. maddesinin 1. paragrafı uyarınca medeni hak değindi, maddi bir doğa vardı ve var. Kanun N 5233 uyarınca kurulan komitenin ve idare mahkemelerinde dava sonrasında başvuranın anayasal ve Kongre hakları bu işlemlerin sonucunda ihlal edildiğini iddia ederek, Anayasa Mahkemesi'ne bireysel şikayette bulunmuştur. Anayasa Mahkemesi, komitede dava ve idari mahkemelerin eksiklikleri sonucunda, o da o yeterli alma umudu vardı olurdu yargılamanın yeniden başlaması için idari mahkemelere geri davayı olabilir buna Anayasa'nın, Sözleşme ve protokollerinin öngörülen başvuru haklarının bir veya daha fazla ihlalleri bulduysa iddia edilen hasar için tazminat.
Dolayısıyla, Anayasa Mahkemesi'nin kararı, başvuranın medeni haklarına doğrudan karar vermiştir. Ayrıca, ön kabul edilebilirlik prosedüründe başvuranın şikayetini reddetti rağmen o, yine de, altında tazminat ilişkin talebini reddeden, özellikle, ayrıntılı olarak incelenmiştir idare mahkemelerinde olmadığını ihlal, muhakeme kısmen başvuru asli argümanları kabul edilir ve 5233 sayılı Kanunla, Anayasa, Sözleşme veya Protokoller kapsamındaki hakları. Sonuç olarak, Sözleşmenin 6 § 1 maddesi bu prosedür için geçerlidir.
(b) Esaslar. Dikkate alınacak süre, dört yargı düzeyinde yaklaşık sekiz yıl dört ay sürmüştür. onlar aşırı uzun değildi, yani bir yıl ve dört ay - dava idare mahkemelerinde yaklaşık iki yıl iki ay ve Anayasa Mahkemesi'nde dava sürdü. Komisyon yaklaşık iki yıl ve 10 ay içinde başvuru sahibinin isteği dikkate başladığından beri Ancak, büyük yük Komisyonu ve söz konusu sorunun çözümü için yetkililer tarafından alınan uygun önlemlerin, bu çabalar, yeterli değildi. Yargılamaların uzunluğu aşırıdı ve makul bir sürenin şartını karşılamadı.
KARAR
Sözleşme'nin 6. maddesinin 1. fıkrasının şartlarının ihlali (oybirliğiyle) kararlaştırılmıştır.
TAZMİNAT
Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. Mahkeme, başvurana manevi tazminat olarak 800 avro verdi.
Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/446-cevikel-turkiye-davasinda .
ECHR judgment of 23 May 2017 in the case of Cevikel v. Turkey (application No. 23121/15).
In 2015, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the length of the proceedings instituted by the applicant against the authorities in order to obtain compensation for damage caused as a result of terrorist acts or counter-terrorism measures. There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
On 21 December 2006 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Turkish authorities with a view to obtaining compensation for causing damage, which, she said, had been caused by terrorist acts or counter-terrorism measures. After applying to the commission established in accordance with Law No. 5233 and the administrative courts, the applicant lodged an individual complaint with the Constitutional Court, which ruled on April 14, 2015. The applicant complained to the European Court about the length of the proceedings in the compensation commission, administrative courts and the Constitutional Court.
ISSUES OF LAW
(a) Applicability. The dispute over compensation for alleged damage caused by terrorist acts or counter-terrorism measures was material in nature and undoubtedly affected civil law provided for in article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. After the proceedings in the commission set up in accordance with Law No. 5233 and the administrative courts, the applicant lodged an individual complaint with the Constitutional Court, arguing that her constitutional and convention rights were violated as a result of this proceedings. If the Constitutional Court had established one or more violations of the applicant's rights under the Constitution, the Convention or the Protocols thereto, owing to the shortcomings in the proceedings before the commission and the administrative courts, he could have sent the case back to the administrative courts for the resumption of the proceedings, then she would have had the prospect of obtaining an adequate compensation for the alleged damage.
Thus, the decision of the Constitutional Court was directly decisive for the civil rights of the applicant. Moreover, even though he rejected the applicant's complaint in the preliminary admissibility procedure, he nevertheless considered the applicant's substantive arguments in the reasoning and, in particular, examined in detail whether the administrative courts had violated the rejection of the applicant's claim for compensation under with Act No. 5233, her rights under the Constitution, the Convention or the Protocols thereto. Consequently, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies to this procedure.
(b) Merits. The period to be taken into account lasted approximately eight years and four months at four levels of jurisdiction. The proceedings in the administrative courts lasted approximately two years and two months, and the Constitutional Court proceedings were one year and four months, that is, they were not excessively long. However, in view of the heavy workload of the commission and the appropriateness of the measures taken by the authorities to eliminate the problem under consideration, these efforts remained insufficient, since the commission began considering the applicant's request in about two years and 10 months. The length of the proceedings was excessive and did not meet the requirement of a reasonable time.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/447-cevikel-v-turkey .
2017 m. Gegužės 23 d. Etilo teismo sprendimas Matiosaitis ir kt. Prieš Lietuvą (pareiškimo Nr. 22662/13 ir kt.).
2013 m. Pareiškėjams padėjo parengti skundus. Vėliau pareiškimo buvo sujungti ir perduoti Lietuvai.
Byloje sėkmingai nagrinėjami skundai dėl pareiškėjų paskyrimo laisvės atėmimo bausmės gyvybe forma, kuri nenumato realios galimybės juos paleisti. Pažeidžiamas Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos 3 straipsnis.
BYLOS APLINKYBĖS
Šeši ieškovai, kurių skundai buvo pripažinti priimtini nagrinėti iš esmės, tarnauja kaip mirties bausmė. Be jų kreipiasi į Teisingumo Teismo, jie skundėsi pagal Konvencijos 3 straipsnį, kad jų sakiniai negali būti sušvelninta de jure arba de facto.
TEISINIAI KLAUSIMAI
Teismas turėjo įvertinti, ar norint gauti sankcijas ieškovėms kaip nesmyagchaemye, ar ten buvo jų išleidimo perspektyva.
a) ankstyvas paleidimas, švelninimas dėl nepagydomos ligos, amnestijos ir bausmės perkvalifikavimo. Nė viena iš šių priemonių nenumatė realios išlaisvinimo perspektyvos. Pagal Lietuvos įstatymus gali būti paleisti tik terminuotą tarnybą turintys kaliniai, o ne gyvi laisvės atėmimo bausmė. Savo ruožtu, nuosekliai nurodė kaip Europos Teisingumo Teismo, iki gyvos galvos mažinimo, susijusio su nepagydoma liga, negali būti traktuojamas kaip "išsivadavimo perspektyva." Be to, pagal Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktų, amnestija negali būti laikomas priemone, kuri suteikia nuteistas kalėti iki gyvos galvos trukmės mažinimo sakinį ar išleidimo. Visi Ankstesnis amnestija paskelbta Seimo, nebuvo taikoma laisvės atėmimo už sunkiausius nusikaltimus, ir trys amnestija aiškiai neapima įkalinimas iki gyvos galvos nuo jo veiksmų ratą. Be to, kaip akto apskritai, o ne individuali programa amnestija matyt nelaikomi reabilitacijos aspektas kiekvienas pirma kalinys. Kaip Teisingumo Teismas nurodė, kad ankstesnėse bylose, bausmės, pasmerkimo už gyvenimo peržiūrą, turėtų leisti valdžios institucijoms vertinti bet kokius asmenų, nuteistų iki gyvos galvos pakeitimus ir bet kokią pažangą, reabilitacija. Galiausiai, nors naujojo Baudžiamojo kodekso 3 straipsnis leidžia perkvalifikavimo gyvos galvos ir jos mažinimo tam tikrą laikotarpį, tai buvo netipiškas įvykis, visi turėjo teisę į pareiškėjų jau nesėkmingai kreipėsi į Peticijų pagal šią nuostatą.
(b) prezidento malonė. Įkalinimas iki gyvos galvos įgijo teisę prašyti malonę už laikotarpį gerokai mažiau nei 25 metų aukštas, kuriame Teisingumo Teismas pripažino priimtinu žiemą ir kitos verslo ir Murray. Ši procedūra yra skaidrūs ir prieinami, įskaitant keletą kriterijų, kuris leidžia pateikti į malonę Komisijai patarimus prezidentą įvertinti, ar toliau įkalinimas gyvos galvos pateisinti teisėtus penological pagrindus. Tačiau prezidento malonė negalėjo būti laikoma, kad gyvenimo nuosprendžiai de facto minkštinti. Pirma, nei atleidimo komisija, nei prezidentas nebuvo įpareigoti motyvuoti atleidimą nuo atleidimo. Antra, prezidento malonių dekretai nebuvo teisminės peržiūros objektu ir kaliniai negalėjo tiesiogiai ginčyti. Trečia, malonės komisijos darbas nebuvo atidarytas, o jo rekomendacijos prezidentui nebuvo teisiškai privalomos. Kaip rezultatas, prezidento institucija dovanoti Lietuvoje yra modernus ekvivalentas karališkosios prerogatyvos gailestingumo, remiantis humanizmo principu, o ne turėti adekvačias procedūrines apsaugos priemones, patikrinti kalinių padėtį, kuri leistų jums reguliuoti savo gyvenimo sakinius mechanizmas. Be to, gyvenimo sakinio sąlygos neprisidėjo prie jų reabilitacijai: nors kalėjimo Lukiškėse, kur gyvenimas sakinys turi tarnauti pirmuosius 10 metų įkalinimo, organizavo keletą socialinės reabilitacijos programas, Europos komitetas prieš kankinimą ir kitokį žiaurų, nežmonišką ar žeminantį elgesį ir baudimą ( CPT) pranešė, kad kaliniai buvo laikomi iki 22,5 valandų per dieną savo ląsteles ir buvo izoliuotas mažose grupėse beveik jokios galimybės santykių su kaliniais Dru fotoaparatai.
Siekiant užtikrinti tinkamą atlygį pokyčių ir pažangos atžvilgiu reabilitacijos, padarytą gyvos galvos, gyvenimas sakinys peržiūra turėtų apimti vykdomosios sumažinti arba teisminę peržiūrą motyvus taip, kad galėtų būti netaikoma netgi savivalės išvaizda. Prezidento malonė Lietuvoje de facto gyvos galvos neleido žinoti, ką jie turėtų daryti, kad gydyti savo išsiskyrimą ir kokiomis sąlygomis, be to, nebuvo teisminė jų sulaikymo. Todėl pareiškėjų gyvenimo bausmės negalėjo būti laikomos sušvelnintomis Konvencijos 3 straipsnio prasme.
SPRENDIMAS
Konflikto 3 straipsnio (vienbalsiai) reikalavimų pažeidimas buvo padarytas byloje.
KOMPENSACIJA
Taikant Konvencijos 41 straipsnį. Pažeidimo fakto nustatymas savaime yra pakankamas teisingas moralinės žalos atlyginimas.
Išleidimo šaltinis: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/448-matiosaitis-ir-kt-pries-lietuva .
The ECHR judgment of 23 May 2017 in Matiosaitis and Others v. Lithuania (applications N 22662/13 and others).
In 2013, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were combined and communicated to Lithuania.
The case successfully considered complaints about the appointment of the applicants in the form of life imprisonment, which does not provide for a real prospect of their release. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
Six of the applicants, whose complaints were found admissible for consideration on the merits, are serving life imprisonment. In their appeals to the European Court, they complained under Article 3 of the Convention that their sentences could not be mitigated de jure or de facto.
ISSUES OF LAW
The Court had to consider whether the sanctions applied to the applicants should be qualified as non-liable, or whether they had a prospect of release.
(a) Early release, mitigation due to incurable disease, amnesty and retraining of sentence. None of these measures provided a real prospect of liberation. In accordance with the legislation of Lithuania, only prisoners serving a fixed term can be released, and not life imprisonment. For his part, as the Court has consistently pointed out, the easing of life imprisonment in connection with an incurable disease can not be considered as a "prospect of liberation". Similarly, amnesty under the laws of Lithuania can not be considered a measure that provides prisoners with a life sentence of a prospect of mitigating their punishment or release. All the previous amnesties proclaimed by the Sejm were not applied to persons deprived of their liberty for particularly grave crimes, and three amnesties explicitly excluded life imprisoned from the circle of their actions. In addition, as an act of general rather than individual application of the amnesty, it seems that the rehabilitation aspect of each particular prisoner is not taken into account. As the Court pointed out in earlier cases, the review of the sentence that condemns a lifetime should allow the authorities to assess any changes in a life-sentenced prisoner and any progress with regard to rehabilitation. Finally, although article 3 of the new Penal Code allows for the re-qualification of life sentences and mitigation until a certain period, this was an atypical phenomenon, all eligible applicants had already submitted applications unsuccessfully in accordance with this provision.
(b) Presidential pardon. Lifetime prisoners have acquired the right to seek pardon for a period substantially less than the 25-year maximum that the European Court found acceptable in the case of Winter and others and the Murray case. This procedure was transparent and accessible, including a number of criteria that allowed the president, on the basis of the opinion of the pardon commission, to assess whether the continuation of the imprisonment of a life imprisoned was justified by justified pseudo-legal grounds. However, the presidential pardon could not be regarded as making life sentences softened de facto. First, neither the pardoning commission nor the president were obliged to give reasons for refusing pardon. Secondly, decrees on presidential pardons were not subject to judicial review and could not be challenged directly by prisoners. Thirdly, the work of the pardon commission was not open, and its recommendations were not legally binding for the president. As a result, the presidential pardon authority in Lithuania was the modern equivalent of the royal prerogative of mercy based on the principle of humanism, and not a mechanism that has adequate procedural safeguards to verify the situation of prisoners, which would allow them to adjust their life sentences. In addition, the conditions for keeping life-long inmates did not contribute to their rehabilitation: although in Lukiškės prison, where lifelong prisoners must serve their first 10 years of imprisonment, a number of social rehabilitation programs were organized, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CPT) reported that prisoners were held 22.5 hours a day in their cells and were in isolation of a small group almost in the absence of the possibility of relations with detainees from the other cameras.
In order to ensure proper consideration of changes and progress with regard to rehabilitation achieved for life imprisoned persons, the review of life sentence should entail either bringing the motives to the executive branch or judicial review in such a way that even the appearance of arbitrariness could be ruled out. The presidential pardon in Lithuania de facto did not allow life-long inmates to know what they should do in order to consider their release and under what conditions, moreover, there was no judicial review of their detention. Accordingly, the applicants' life sentences could not be considered mitigated for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The establishment of a fact of a violation in itself constitutes sufficient fair compensation for moral damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/449-matiosaitis-and-others-v-lithuania .