Новости от 25 июля 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 25.07.2018 08:25

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 27 марта 2018 года по делу "Беркович и другие (Berkovich and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 5871/07, 61948/08, 25025/10, 19971/12, 46965/12, 75561/12, 73574/13, 504/14, 31941/14 и 45416/14).

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей, допускавшихся в различное время к сведениям, составляющим государственную тайну, на то, что их право выезжать за пределы Российской Федерации по своим личным интересам после окончания работы было ограничено, заявители также указывали на то, что данная проблема носит структурный характер по своей сути, так как после двух аналогичных дел, рассмотренных Европейским Судом, в законодательство не были внесены какие-либо изменения. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 2 Протокола N 4 к Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

В 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013 и 2014 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

В своих жалобах заявители (10 человек), допускавшиеся в различное время к сведениям, составляющим государственную тайну, жаловались на то, что их право выезжать за пределы Российской Федерации по своим личным интересам после окончания работы было ограничено. Заявители также указывали на то, что данная проблема носит структурный характер по своей сути, так как после двух аналогичных дел, рассмотренных Европейским Судом, в законодательство не были внесены какие-либо изменения.

27 марта 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 2 Протокола N 4 к Конвенции (свобода передвижения), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить шести заявителям 37 538 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда. Европейский Суд также подчеркнул, что неисполнение двух ранее вынесенных постановлений противоречит статье 46 Конвенции и Комитету министров Совета Европы надлежит рассмотреть этот вопрос.

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/466-berkovich-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

The ECHR judgment of 27 March 2018 in Berkovich and Others v. Russia (applications no. 5871/07, 61948/08, 25025/10, 19971/12, 46965/12, 75561/12, 73574 / 13, 504/14, 31941/14 and 45416/14).

The case successfully examined the complaints of the applicants, admitted at various times to information constituting state secrets, that their right to travel outside the Russian Federation for personal interests after the end of work was limited, the applicants also pointed out that the problem was structurally character in its essence, since after two similar cases examined by the European Court, no changes were made to the legislation. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014, 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 (10 people), admitted at various times to information constituting state secrets, complained that their right to travel outside the Russian Federation for personal interests after their work was limited. The applicants also pointed out that this problem is structural in nature, since after two similar cases examined by the European Court, no changes were made to the legislation.

On 27 March 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (freedom of movement) and ordered the respondent State to pay six applicants EUR 37,538 in respect of non-pecuniary damage . The Court also stressed that the failure to comply with the two earlier decisions contradicted Article 46 of the Convention and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe should consider this issue.


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/467-berkovich-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 27 марта 2018 года по делу "Александр Александров (Aleksandr Aleksandrov) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 14431/06).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя, осужденного по статье 318 Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации к одному году лишения свободы, на то, что он подвергся дискриминации, так как, назначая реальное, а не условное наказание, суд, среди иных факторов указал, что заявитель не проживал в городе Москве или Московской области. По делу допущено нарушение требования статьи 14 в сочетании со статьей 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2006 году заявителю была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.

 

В своей жалобе заявитель, осужденный по статье 318 Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации (применение насилия в отношении представителя власти) к одному году лишения свободы, жаловался на то, что подвергся дискриминации, так как, назначая реальное, а не условное наказание, суд, среди иных факторов указал, что заявитель не проживал в городе Москве или Московской области.

 

27 марта 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требования статьи 14 Конвенции (запрещение дискриминации) в сочетании со статьей 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 10 000 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/468-aleksandr-aleksandrov-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 27 March 2018 in the case "Aleksandr Aleksandrov (Aleksandr Aleksandrov) v. Russian Federation" (application No. 14431/06).

 

The case successfully examined the complaint of the applicant, convicted under Article 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to one year of imprisonment, because he was discriminated against, since, by appointing a real and not conditional sentence, the court, among other factors, indicated that the applicant did not lived in the city of Moscow or the Moscow region. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2006, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant, convicted under Article 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (the use of violence against a government representative) to one year in prison, complained that he had been discriminated against, since, by appointing a real and not conditional sentence, the court, among others factors indicated that the applicant did not reside in the city of Moscow or the Moscow region.

 

On 27 March 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) and ordered the respondent State to pay The applicant received EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/469-aleksandr-aleksandrov-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 20 марта 2018 года по делу "Лебедев (Lebedev) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 6705/07).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя на длительность судебного разбирательства по его гражданскому делу, а также на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2007 году заявителю была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.

 

В своей жалобе заявитель жаловался на длительность судебного разбирательства по его гражданскому делу, а также на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации.

 

20 марта 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции (право на справедливое судебное разбирательство), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 750 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/470-lebedev-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 20 March 2018 in the case of Lebedev v. The Russian Federation (application no. 6705/07).

 

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint about the length of the trial in his civil case, as well as the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation. There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2007, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings in his civil case, as well as the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation.

 

On 20 March 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay EUR 750 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/476-lebedev-v-russia-1 .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 20 марта 2018 года по делу "Малимоненко (Malimonenko) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 46580/08).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя на то, что его содержание под стражей в ожидании экстрадиции было незаконным и длилось необоснованно долго. Заявитель также жаловался на то, что был лишен возможности безотлагательного судебного рассмотрения вопроса о законности задержания. По делу допущено нарушение требований пунктов 1 и 4 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2008 году заявителю была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.

 

В своей жалобе заявитель жаловался на то, что его содержание под стражей в ожидании экстрадиции было незаконным и длилось необоснованно долго. Заявитель также жаловался на то, что был лишен возможности безотлагательного судебного рассмотрения вопроса о законности задержания.

 

20 марта 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требования пунктов 1 и 4 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 7 500 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/472-malimonenko-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 20 March 2018 in the case of Malimonenko v. The Russian Federation (application no. 46580/08).

 

The applicant's complaint that his detention pending extradition was unlawful and continued unreasonably long was successfully considered in the case. The applicant also complained that he was deprived of the possibility of an urgent judicial examination of the legality of the detention. The case was violated the requirements of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2008, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant complained that his detention pending extradition was unlawful and had lasted unreasonably long. The applicant also complained that he was deprived of the possibility of an urgent judicial examination of the legality of the detention.

 

On 20 March 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7,500 compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/473-malimonenko-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 20 марта 2018 года по делу "Ткаченко (Tkachenko) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 28046/05).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителей на неправомерное лишение их собственности. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2005 году заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.

 

В своей жалобе заявители, Михаил Александрович Ткаченко, Нина Николаевна Ткаченко, Александр Михайлович Ткаченко и Наталья Михайловна Ткаченко, 1964, 1966, 1985 и 1989 годов рождения соответственно, проживавшие в городе Аксае Ростовской области, жаловались на неправомерное лишение их собственности.

 

20 марта 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно признал жалобы на нарушение статьи 8 Конвенции и статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции приемлемыми для рассмотрения по существу, а остальную часть жалобы - нет и постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции, и что нет необходимости в рассмотрении жалобы на нарушение статьи 8 Конвенции. Европейский Суд присудил заявителям на всех 5 000 евро в качестве компенсации материального вреда и 5 000 евро на каждого в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/474-tkachenko-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 20 March 2018 in the case of Tkachenko v. The Russian Federation (application No. 28046/05).

 

In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the unlawful deprivation of their property. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2005, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaint, the applicants, Mikhail Alexandrovich Tkachenko, Nina Nikolaevna Tkachenko, Alexander Mikhailovich Tkachenko and Natalia Mikhailovna Tkachenko, born in 1964, 1966, 1985 and 1989 respectively, residing in the city of Aksay, Rostov Region, complained about the unlawful deprivation of their property.

 

On 20 March 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously recognized the complaints of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible and that the remainder of the application was not and found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and that there is no need to consider a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicants for all 5,000 euros in respect of pecuniary damage and 5,000 euros each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/475-tkachenko-v-russia .

 

 

ECHR-reglugerð frá 18. maí 2017 að því er varðar Johannesson og aðrir á Íslandi (kvörtun nr. 22007/11).

 

Árið 2011 voru umsækjarnir aðstoðar við undirbúning kvörtunarinnar. Í kjölfarið var kvörtunin send til Íslands.

 

Í því tilviki var talið að kvörtun hafi verið tekin með því að koma umsækjendum til stjórnsýslu og refsiaðgerðar á sama hátt. Málið var brot á kröfum 4. gr. Bókunar nr. 7 við samninginn um vernd mannréttinda og grundvallarfrelsis.

 

 

 

Umhverfi um málið

 


Frá fyrstu og öðrum umsækjendum voru viðbótarskattar teknar í stjórnsýslumeðferð til að koma í veg fyrir yfirlýsingu um tilteknar tekjur í skattframtali. Í síðari sakamáli voru þeir dæmdir um glæpi í tengslum við sömu brot og þeir voru dæmdir í fangelsi skilyrðislaust og fínt. Við ákvörðun fjárhæð sektarinnar voru teknar til viðbótar skatta. Í hefðbundnum málum höfðu umsækjendur kvartað samkvæmt 4. gr. Bókunar nr. 7 við samninginn að þeir hefðu verið reyndir og refsað tvisvar fyrir sömu brot.

 


Málum laga

 

 

 

Dómstóllinn er sannfærður um að glæpi sem umsækjendur voru dæmdir fyrir og dæmdir voru byggðar á sömu forsendum á grundvelli viðbótarskattar. Ennfremur talaði hann um spurninguna hvort það væri dregið úr dómi og refsingu. Hann minnist í þessu sambandi að par málsins á vettvangi, eins og í tilviki umsækjenda og glæpamaður og stjórnsýsluréttar voru ekki bannað með 4. gr bókunar N 7 við samninginn, ef stjórnvöld í ríkinu getur sannfærandi sýna að tvö sett af málsmeðferð væri "vel nóg tengdur við benda og tíma "(sjá. ákvörðun yfirdeildarinnar Evrópu dómstólsins í málinu" A. og B. gegn Noregi "(A og B v. Norway) þann 15. nóvember 2016 kvörtunin N 24130/11 og 29758/11) .

 

Þessi viðmiðun var ekki komin fram í þessu tilfelli. Í fyrsta lagi, með tilliti til samskipta á kostum dómstóllinn viðurkenndi að tvö sett af málsmeðferð stunda óhefðbundnar markmiðum, afleiðingar aðgerða umsækjenda voru fyrirsjáanlegar og eins fleiri skattar hafa verið mætt með sektir, viðurlög þegar beitt í málsmeðferð skatta, voru nægilega að teknu tilliti til þegar refsing er lögð fram í sakamáli. Hins vegar, að því er varðar söfnun sönnunargagna, sem er mikilvægur þáttur í mati á samskipti á kostum, þrátt aðgang að skýrslum um rannsókn, skattyfirvalda og skjöl saman í tengslum við skatta endurskoðun lögreglan framkvæmt rannsókn sakamáls, fram eigin sjálfstæða rannsókn, sem lauk sannfæringu umsækjanda Hæstiréttur.

 

Aðgerðir umsækjenda og ábyrgð þeirra á grundvelli ýmissa ákvæða skatt- og refsiréttar voru skoðaðar af ýmsum stofnunum og dómstólum í málefnum sem voru að mestu leyti óháð hver öðrum.

 

Í öðru lagi, með tilliti til samskipta með tímanum, verður það að vera nægilega náið til að vernda einstakling frá váhrifum á óvissu og töfum og að framlengja rannsóknina. Í málum umsækjenda var heildarlengd tveggja málsmeðferðar um níu ár og þrjá mánuði, með samhliða málsmeðferð í eitt ár með litlu. Umsækjendurnir voru gjaldfærðir aðeins 15-16 mánuðum eftir ákvarðanir skattyfirvalda í stjórnsýslumeðferðinni og voru þeir aðeins dæmdir um fjögur ár eftir þessar ákvarðanir. Ákvörðun Hæstaréttar (sem var óbreytt með sannfæringu umsækjenda og sem fyrsti umsækjandi var dæmdur enn frekar) var gerður jafnvel meira en ári síðar. Yfirvöld svaranda ríkisins útskýrðu ekki þessar tafir.

 

Í samræmi við það, miðað við, einkum takmörkuð í tíma tilviljun og hagkvæman hátt sjálfstæða sönnunargögn söfnun og mat, það var ekki nægilega náið samband og verulega í tíma á milli skatta og sakamál sem myndi leyfa þeim að teljast samrýmanleg viðmiðun bis.11 grein 4 N 7 bókun til samningsins.

 


ÁKVÖRÐUN

 


Málið var brot á kröfum 4. gr. Bókunar nr. 7 við samninginn (samhljóða samþykkt).

 


Bætur

 


Við beitingu 41. gr. Samningsins. Dómstóllinn veitt ófjárhagslegt tjón á 5.000 evrur á fyrsta umsækjanda og EUR 10.000 til seinni umsækjanda, finna um brot telst nægilega sanngjarnar bætur vegna tjóns á eignum.

 

 

 

Heimild til birtingar: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/460-johannesson-og-aorir-a-islandi .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR Ordinance of 18 May 2017 in the case of Johannesson and Others v. Iceland (application No. 22007/11).

 

In 2011, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Iceland.

 

In the case, a complaint was successfully considered to bring the applicants to administrative and criminal responsibility for the same acts. The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


From the first and second applicants, additional taxes were collected in the administrative proceedings for evading the declaration of certain revenues in their tax returns. In subsequent criminal proceedings, they were convicted of crimes in connection with the same violations, and they were sentenced to imprisonment conditionally and fine. When determining the amount of the fine, additional taxes were taken into account. In the conventional proceedings, the applicants complained under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that they had been tried and punished twice for the same offense.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


The Court is convinced that the crimes for which the applicants were convicted and convicted were based on the same set of facts on the basis of which additional taxes were collected. Further, he considered the question of whether there was a backlog of judgment and punishment. In this respect, he recalls that the dual proceedings on the basis of, as in the case of the applicants, both criminal and administrative law were not prohibited by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, if the respondent Government could convincingly prove that the two proceedings were "sufficiently closely are related in substance and in time "(see A and B v. Norway, judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of 15 November 2016, applications Nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11) .

 

This criterion was not observed in the present case. First, with regard to substantive communication, the Court recognized that the two proceedings pursued complementary objectives, the consequences of the applicants' actions were predictable and, since additional taxes were assessed with fines, the sanctions already imposed in the tax proceedings were sufficiently taken into account when imposing punishment in criminal proceedings. However, with regard to the collection of evidence, which is an important factor in assessing the merits, despite the access to the reports of investigators, tax authorities and documents collected during the tax audit, the police investigating the criminal case conducted its own independent investigation, which culminated in the conviction of the applicants The Supreme Court.

 

The actions of the applicants and their liability on the basis of various provisions of tax and criminal law were examined by various bodies and courts in proceedings that were largely independent of one another.

 

Secondly, with regard to communication over time, it must be sufficiently close to protect a person from exposure to uncertainty and delays and from extending the trial. In the applicants' cases, the total length of the two proceedings was about nine years and three months, with parallel proceedings for a year with a small one. The applicants were charged only 15-16 months after the decisions of the tax authorities in the administrative proceedings, and they were convicted only about four years after these decisions. The decision of the Supreme Court (which was left unchanged by the convictions of the applicants and to which the first applicant was further convicted) was rendered even more than a year later. The authorities of the respondent State did not explain these delays.

 

Accordingly, considering, in particular, a limited coincidence in time and predominantly independent collection and assessment of evidence, there was not a sufficiently close relationship between the substance and the time between the tax and criminal proceedings that would make them compatible with the criterion bis.11 of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

 

 

 

DECISION

 


The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (unanimously adopted).

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the first applicant and EUR 10,000 to the second applicant, the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient fair compensation for any pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/461-johannesson-and-others-v-iceland .

 

 

Решение на Европейския съд по правата на човека от 12 май 2017 г. по делото Симеонови с / у България (жалба № 21980/04).

 

През 2004 г. жалбоподателите са подпомогнати при подготовката на жалбата. Впоследствие жалбата е съобщена в България.

 

Жалбата за липсата на достъп на жалбоподателя до адвокат по време на неговото задържане бе разгледана успешно по случая. Делото не е нарушило изискванията на член 6 от Конвенцията за защита на правата на човека и основните свободи. Настъпи нарушение на член 3 от Конвенцията за защита на правата на човека и основните свободи.

 

 

 

ОБСТОЯТЕЛСТВА ПО ДЕЛОТО

 


В настоящия случай имаше трима жалбоподатели, но камарата на Европейския съд сметна жалбите на втория жалбоподател и жалбоподателя за недопустими за разглеждане по същество. Жалбоподателят по делото е задържан на 3 октомври 1999 г. по подозрение за участие в тежко престъпление. През първите три дни на полицейско задържане той не използва услугите на адвокат. На 6 октомври 1999 г., когато е обвинен, че има официално назначен адвокат, жалбоподателят отказва да отговори на всички въпроси на следователя. На 12 октомври 1999 г., когато бил разпитан в присъствието на двама адвокати по негов избор, той останал мълчалив. На 21 октомври 1999 г., използвайки услугите на двамата си адвокати, той признава престъплението, за което е обвинен. Няколко месеца по-късно жалбоподателят отхвърли изповедта си и представи различна версия на събитията. Той беше осъден на доживотен затвор.

 

Резолюция на Камарата до 20 октомври 2015 г. Съдът единодушно е приел, че в случая на изискванията на алинея "в" на алинея 3 на член 6 от Конвенцията във връзка с член 6, § 1 от Конвенцията са нарушени не е така, що се отнася до липсата на достъп до адвокат по време на първите три дни от неговия задържане под полицейско задържане.

 

На 14 март 2016 г., по искане на жалбоподателя, камарата на Съда реши да се откаже от компетентността си в полза на Големия състав на Съда на Европейските общности.

 


ПРОБЛЕМИ НА ЗАКОНА

 


По отношение на спазването на член 6 § 1 от Конвенцията (въпросът за спазването на правото на справедлив съдебен процес) и алинея "в" от параграф 3 на член 6 от Конвенцията. Съдът припомня, че, като общо правило, достъп до адвокат следва да бъде предоставена от първия полицейски разпит на заподозрения, освен ако не може да се установи, че са налице основателни причини за ограничаване на това право при определени обстоятелства по случая. Дори и да има сериозни основания да, като изключение, оправдават отказа на достъп до адвокат, такова ограничение по някаква причина не трябва неоправдано накърнява правата на обвиняемия за защита в съответствие с член 6 от Конвенцията. По принцип, за да защити правото непоправимо нарушени, ако уличаващи показанията, дадени по време на полицейски разпит в отсъствието на всякаква възможност за правна помощ, се използват като основа за осъдителна присъда.

 

а) Началната точка за прилагането на член 6 от Конвенцията. В настоящия случай началната точка за правото на правна помощ е датата на задържане на жалбоподателя. Наистина, задържането се основава на престъплението, за което той е заподозрян, и това оказа голямо влияние върху положението му, което позволява на властите да извършват изследвания с участието си.

 

б) Неуспех. Дори ако се приеме, че жалбоподателят не е подал пряко искане за правна помощ по време на полицейско задържане, не би могло да се счита, че той е отказал правото на тази помощ по подразбиране. Полицията всъщност избягва да го уведоми за това право след задържането му.

 

в) Липса на "неотложни причини" за ограничаване на достъпа до адвокат. Не се споменава за "убедителни причини", които оправдават ограничението за достъп на жалбоподателя до адвокат по време на задържането му (непосредствена опасност за живота, физическата цялост и / или безопасността на другите). В допълнение, вътрешното законодателство относно достъпа до адвокат по време на полицейското задържане не предвижда изрично изключване от прилагането на това право.

 

г) Общата справедливост на производството. Липсата на "спешни причини" в настоящия случай накара Съда да извърши много строга оценка на справедливостта на производството. Правителството на ответната държава трябва убедително да установи, че жалбоподателят е използвал справедлив наказателен процес.

 

Европейският съд взе предвид следните фактори: (i) жалбоподателят участва активно във всички етапи от наказателното производство; той прибран първоначалната си декларация, като представи друга версия на събитията, както и адвокатите му да събира оневиняващи доказателства и да оспори доказателствата срещу него, (II) присъдата на жалбоподателя не се основава единствено на неговото признание, но и на целия набор от непротиворечиви доказателства, (III) на съдилищата надлежно са взели предвид събраните доказателства, са установили, че процесуалните права на жалбоподателя са били спазени, и са мотивирали решенията си по фактически и законни причини. Нямаше какво да се посочи, че жалбоподателят е бил официално или неофициално разпитван, докато е в ареста. Срещу него доказателства не са получени с участието на делото по време на задържането. От материалите по делото не става ясно, че приблизително три дни от задържането жалбоподателят е участвал в други разследващи действия (като идентифициране или получаване на ДНК проби). Освен това би било невъзможно в съответствие с правото на страната да се използват доказателства срещу него, получени при липса на адвокат. Кандидатът променила своята версия на събитията, дори и обяснения му в Съда са били по-скоро неясни в това отношение, и то не разполага с конкретни подробности, преди да подадете меморандум му в Голямата камара на Съда на Европейските общности.

 

Доброволният характер на признаване на кандидата може да бъде получена от следните факти: (и) той мълчеше през предходните две интервюта, (II) по време на разпита и признаването той се е ползвал правна помощ и е бил информиран за процесуалните му права, по-специално, за неговата правото да не свидетелства против себе си, (iii) отказът му да свидетелства няма да окаже въздействие върху последващите етапи на наказателното производство.

 

В съдилищата на страната или на Европейския съд не споменава причинно-следствена връзка между липсата на правна помощ по време на задържането му и му признаване на две седмици в присъствието на адвокат по свой избор. Следователно липсата на адвокат, докато е в ареста, по никакъв начин не засяга привилегията на жалбоподателя да не свидетелства против себе си. Следователно това неотменимо не нарушава справедливостта на наказателното производство като цяло.

 


РЕШЕНИЕ

 


В случая не е налице нарушение на член 6 от Конвенцията (приета с 12 гласа "за" и пет - "против").

 

Съдът също така единодушно реши, че е имало нарушение на член 3 от Конвенцията по отношение на задържането на жалбоподателя във връзка с продължителността на лишаването му от свобода и строг тъмничен затвор, които са му възложени, и присъжда на жалбоподателя 8000 евро обезщетение за неимуществени вреди.

 

 

 

Източник на публикация: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/462-simeonovi-u-bulgaria .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 12 May 2017 in the case of Simeonovi v. Bulgaria (application No. 21980/04).

 

In 2004, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated in Bulgaria.

 

The complaint on the failure to provide the applicant access to a lawyer during his detention was successfully considered in the case. The case did not violate the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


There were three applicants in the present case, but the Chamber of the European Court found the second applicant's and the applicant's complaints inadmissible for examination on the merits. The applicant in the case was detained on 3 October 1999 on suspicion of involvement in a serious crime. During the first three days of police custody he did not use the services of a lawyer. On 6 October 1999, when he was accused of having an officially appointed lawyer, the applicant refused to answer any questions from the investigator. On October 12, 1999, when he was interrogated in the presence of two lawyers of his choice, he remained silent. On October 21, 1999, using the services of his two lawyers, he confessed to the crime he was accused of. A few months later, the applicant declined his confession and presented a different version of the events. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

 

By a decision of the Chamber of 20 October 2015, the Court unanimously found that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention were not violated in connection with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as regards the lack of access to a lawyer during the first three days of his detention in police custody.

 

On 14 March 2016, at the applicant's request, the Chamber of the Court decided to surrender jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention (the question of observance of the right to a fair trial) and subparagraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention. The Court recalls that, as a general rule, access to a lawyer should be granted from the first police interrogation of a suspect if it can not be established that in the special circumstances of the case there are urgent reasons for limiting this right. Even if substantial reasons can justify, as an exception, denial of access to a lawyer, such a restriction for any reason should not unreasonably impair the rights of the accused to defense in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention. Protection rights are in principle irrevocably violated if incriminating testimony given during police interrogation in the absence of any possibility of legal assistance is used as the basis for conviction.

 

(a) The starting point for the application of Article 6 of the Convention. In the present case, the starting point for the right to legal assistance is the date of detention of the applicant. Indeed, this detention was based on the crimes in which he was suspected, and it had a major impact on his situation, enabling the authorities to conduct investigative actions with his participation.

 

(b) No failure. Even if one assumes that the applicant did not submit a direct request for legal assistance while in police custody, he could not be considered to have waived the right to this assistance by default. The police actually avoided notifying him of this right after he was detained.

 

(c) Lack of "pressing reasons" to restrict access to a lawyer. No "pressing reasons" were mentioned, justifying the restriction of the applicant's access to a lawyer during his detention (an immediate threat to life, physical integrity and / or safety of others). In addition, domestic legislation on access to a lawyer during police detention does not explicitly provide for exclusion from the application of this right.

 

(d) The general fairness of the proceedings. The absence of "urgent reasons" in the present case compelled the Court to conduct a very strict assessment of the fairness of the proceedings. The Government of the respondent State had to establish convincingly that the applicant, however, had used a fair criminal trial.

 

The European Court took into account the following factors: (i) the applicant was actively involved in all stages of the criminal proceedings; he refused his original testimony by submitting a different version of the events and his lawyers secured the collection of evidence of evidence and challenged evidence against him, (ii) the applicant's conviction was based not only on his confession but also on the whole body of consistent evidence, (iii) the courts duly took into account the evidence collected, ascertained that the applicant's procedural rights were respected, and provided adequate reasons for his decisions in terms of facts and law. There was nothing to indicate that the applicant had been formally or informally interrogated while in detention. Against him, evidence was not obtained with the involvement of the case file during detention. It does not follow from the materials of the case that during approximately three days of detention the applicant participated in any other investigative actions (such as the identification or receipt of DNA samples). In addition, it would be impossible in accordance with the law of the country to use evidence against him obtained in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant changed his version of the events, even his explanations to the European Court were very vague in this respect, and he did not specify any specific details before submitting his memorandum to the Grand Chamber of the European Court.

 

The voluntary nature of the applicant's confession may be inferred from the following facts: (i) he remained silent during the two previous interrogations, (ii) during the interrogation and his confession, he used legal assistance and was informed of his procedural rights, in particular, about his the right not to testify against oneself, (iii) his refusal to testify will not have an impact on subsequent stages of criminal proceedings.

 

The courts of the country or the European Court did not mention the causal link between the lack of legal assistance during the applicant's detention and his confession in two weeks in the presence of a lawyer of his choice. Consequently, the absence of a lawyer while in detention did not in any way affect the applicant's privilege not to testify against himself. Accordingly, this irrevocably did not violate the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole.

 


DECISION

 

 

 

In the case, the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention were not violated (it was adopted by 12 votes "for" at five - "against").

 

The Court also unanimously found that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the conditions of the applicant's detention in conjunction with the length of his detention and the strict prison regime that had been applied to him and awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/463-simeonovi-v-bulgaria .

 

 

ՄԻԵԴ-ի որոշումը, մայիսի 4-ի մայիսի 4-ին, «Սահման» ՍՊԸ-ի («Սոլ» ՍՊԸ) գործով Հայաստանի դեմ »(բողոք թիվ 15485/09):

 

2009 թ. Դիմումատուներին աջակցել են բողոքի պատրաստման հարցում: Դիմումը հետագայում փոխանցվեց Հայաստան:

 

Գործը հաջողությամբ համարվեց հարկային մարմնի որոշման դեմ դիմումատուից հարկ վճարել, տուգանք եւ տուգանք, վկաների ցուցմունքների հիման վրա, որոնք հարցաքննության համար դատարան չեն հրավիրվել: Մարդու իրավունքների եւ հիմնարար ազատությունների պաշտպանության մասին Կոնվենցիայի 6-րդ հոդվածի խախտում է եղել:

 

 

 

Գործի եզրակացությունները

 


Դիմումատու ընկերությունը լիցենզավորված հեռուստատեսային հեռարձակող է: 2007 թ.-ին հարկային մարմինները ներկայացրեցին այն կարծիքը, որում հաստատվել է, որ դիմումատու ընկերությունը նվազեցրել է իր հարկային պարտավորությունները `գովազդային եկամուտները թաքցնելու միջոցով: Հարկային մարմինները, մասնավորապես, անդրադարձել է այն փաստաթղթերի, որ իրենք դիմել են ՀՀ ազգային հանձնաժողովի Հեռուստատեսության եւ ռադիոյի (այսուհետ `ՀՌԱՀ), եւ վկայությունը վկաների, ովքեր պնդում էին, որ նրանք չէին ստացել է հաստատման վճարումների նրանց հետո տեղաբաշխման գովազդի հեռուստատեսությամբ:

 

Հետագայում վարչական դատարանը դիմումատու ընկերությանը պատվիրեց վճարել չվճարված հարկ, 60 տոկոս տուգանք եւ տուգանք `ուշ վճարման համար: Ի կոնվենցիայի վարույթի, դիմումատու ընկերությունը բողոքում է համաձայն 1-ին եւ ենթակետում «դ» պարբերությամբ 3 6-րդ հոդվածի Կոնվենցիայի, որ վարչական դատարանը տվել է նրան հնարավորություն է հարցազրույց ղեկավար ՀՌԱՀ կամ այլ վկաների դատավարությանը:

 


ՕՐԵՆՔԻ ՀԱՐՑԵՐԸ

 


Կոնվենցիայի 6-րդ հոդվածի 1-ին կետին համապատասխանելու վերաբերյալ `Կոնվենցիայի 6-րդ հոդվածի 3-րդ կետի (դ) կետի հետ համատեղ: Դիմումատու ընկերությունը ստացել է զգալի պատժամիջոցներ, տույժեր եւ տույժեր, որոնք կազմում են հարկի գումարի ավելի քան 60% -ը: Այսպիսով, Կոնվենցիայի 6-րդ հոդվածը կիրառվել է իր քրեական իրավունքի տեսանկյունից: Չնայած նրան, որ եղանակը կիրառման րդ հոդվածի երաշխիքների Կոնվենցիայի 6-ի համատեքստում վարույթի վերաբերյալ հարկային պատժամիջոցների որոշ դեպքերում կարող են տարբերվել այն օգտագործվում շրջանակներում քրեական օրենքի խիստ իմաստով, սույն գործով, ընկերությունը-Դիմումատուն վիճարկեց իրական հարկային իշխանությունների եզրակացությունները, որոնք հիմնված էին այն վկայութեան, ոչ թե ապահովված են համապատասխան փաստաթղթեր:

 

Առանց հաշվի առնելու, թե արդյոք լավ պատճառները իրենց բացակայության էին վարչական դատարանը հրաժարվել է տրամադրել դիմումատու ընկերությունը վկաներին, քանի որ որոշել է, որ նրանց վկայությունը տեղին չէ: Սակայն, այդ փաստաթղթերը ներկայացվել են մեկի վկաների (ղեկավար ՀՌԱՀ), եւ այլ վկաների ցուցմունքներին են վերցրել են որպես ապացույց դեմ դիմումատու ընկերության, եւ չնայած նրանք ոչ միայն նրանք, դրա դեմ, նրանք կարող են համարել է ունենալ որոշիչ նշանակություն որոշելու հարկային տույժեր: Վկաների հարցաքննության անհնարինության պատճառով դիմումատու ընկերության սահմանափակումները փոխհատուցել են ընթացակարգային երաշխիքներ: Համապատասխանաբար, դիմումատու ընկերությունը հիմնավորված էր սահմանափակվել իր դեմ գործի վարույթում վկաների հարցաքննության իրավունքի մեջ:

 


ՈՐՈՇՈՒՄ

 


Կոնվենցիայի 6-րդ հոդվածի պահանջների խախտում (միաձայն) կատարվեց:

 


ԸՆԹԱՑԱԿԱՐԳ

 


Կոնվենցիայի 41-րդ հոդվածի կիրառման մեջ: Դատարանը փոխհատուցում դիմումատու ընկերությանը EUR 2 400, քանի որ բարոյական վնասի փոխհատուցման պահանջը նյութական վնասի մերժվեց:

 

 

 

Հրատարակման աղբյուրը. http://espchhelp.ru/blog/464-chap-ltd-company-against-armenia .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR ruling of May 4, 2017 in the case of "Chap Ltd." company (Chap Ltd.) against Armenia "(application No. 15485/09).

 

In 2009, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. The application was subsequently communicated to Armenia.

 

The case was successfully considered a complaint against the decision of the tax authority to recover from the applicant a tax, fine and fine, based on the testimony of witnesses who were not summoned to the court for interrogation. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant company is a licensed television broadcaster. In 2007, the tax authorities presented an opinion in which it was established that the applicant company had lowered its tax obligations by concealing advertising revenue. The tax authorities, in particular, referred to the documents they requested from the head of the National Commission on Television and Radio (NTRC) and the testimony of witnesses who claimed that they did not receive confirmation of payments made after the advertisement was placed on television.

 

Subsequently, the administrative court ordered the applicant company to pay the unpaid tax, a 60 percent fine and a fine for late payment. In the conventional proceedings, the applicant company complained under paragraph 1 and subparagraph (d) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention that the administrative court did not allow it to question the head of the NTRC or other witnesses in the proceedings.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, in conjunction with article 6, paragraph 3 (d), of the Convention. The applicant company was given significant sanctions, fines and penalties amounting to more than 60% of the amount of the tax due. Thus, Article 6 of the Convention was applicable in its criminal law aspect. Although the way in which the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention can be applied in the context of tax sanctions proceedings in certain cases may differ from those applied strictly in criminal law, in the present case the applicant company challenged the actual findings of tax authorities that were based on testimonies not supported by the relevant documentation.

 

Without considering whether there were valid reasons for not appearing, the administrative court refused to provide the applicant company with a witness challenge, because it considered that their testimony was irrelevant. However, the documents submitted by one of the witnesses (the head of the NTRC) and the testimony of the other witnesses were taken as evidence against the applicant company, and although they were not the only ones against it, they could be considered crucial for determining tax sanctions. There were no procedural guarantees that compensated the applicant company's limitations because of the impossibility of questioning these witnesses. Accordingly, the applicant company was unreasonably limited in its right to question witnesses in the proceedings against her.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant company EUR 2,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage was rejected.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/465-chap-ltd-v-armenia .