Новости от 26 июля 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 26.07.2018 07:32

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 20 марта 2018 года по делу "Игранов и другие (Igranov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 42399/13, 24051/14, 36747/14, 60710/14, 3741/15, 7615/15, 24303/15, 24307/15 и 24605/15).

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей, находившихся в соответствующее время в местах лишения свободы, на то, что им не была обеспечена возможность личного участия в рассмотрении их дел в рамках гражданского судопроизводства, заявители также утверждали о наличии структурных проблем по данному вопросу. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

В 2013, 2014 и 2015 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

В своих жалобах заявители (девять человек), находившиеся в соответствующее время в местах лишения свободы, жаловались на то, что им не была обеспечена возможность личного участия в рассмотрении их дел в рамках гражданского судопроизводства. Заявители также утверждали о наличии структурных проблем по данному вопросу.

20 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), отклонил требование о вынесении "пилотного" постановления и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить шести заявителям по 1 500 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда. Особое мнение выразила Х. Келлер (избранная от Швейцарии), обосновав необходимость принятия "пилотного" постановления по рассматриваемому делу, пойдя в данной ситуации в разрез с мнениями своих коллег.

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/483-igranov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 20 March 2018 in the case of Igranov and Others v. Russia (applications N 42399/13, 24051/14, 36747/14, 60710/14, 3741/15, 7615/15, 24303 / 15, 24307/15 and 24605/15).

The case successfully examined the complaints of the applicants who were at the appropriate time in places of deprivation of liberty, the fact that they were not provided with the possibility of personal participation in the consideration of their cases in civil proceedings, the applicants also claimed that there were structural problems on this issue. There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In 2013, 2014 and 2015, 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 (nine people) who were at the appropriate time in places of deprivation of liberty complained that they had not been provided with the opportunity to participate personally in the consideration of their cases in civil proceedings. The applicants also claimed that there were structural problems with this issue.

On 20 March 2018, on 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), rejected the requirement for a "pilot" order and ordered the respondent State to pay six applicants for EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The special opinion was expressed by H. Keller (elected from Switzerland), having justified the need to adopt a "pilot" resolution on the case under consideration, having gone in this situation in the context of the opinions of her colleagues.


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/484-igranov-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 13 марта 2018 года по делу "Адиканко и Басов-Гринев (Adikanko and Basov-Grinev) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 2872/09 и 20454/12).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на нарушение их права на доступ к суду. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2009 и 2012 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители, Евгений Николаевич Адиканко, 1977 года рождения, проживающий в городе Омске, и Александр Святославович Басов-Гринев, 1952 года рождения, проживающий в городе Краснодаре, жаловались на нарушение их права на доступ к суду.

 

13 марта 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно решил объединить жалобы в одно производство, признал жалобы приемлемыми для рассмотрения по существу и постановил, что имело место нарушение пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции (право на справедливое судебное разбирательство) в отношении заявителя Басова-Гринева. Заявитель Басов-Гринев не предъявил требований о справедливой компенсации.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/485-adikanko-i-basov-grinev-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

ECHR judgment of 13 March 2018 in the case Adikanko and Basov-Grinev v. The Russian Federation (applications N 2872/09 and 20454/12).

 

The applicants successfully complained about the violation of their right to access to court. There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2009 and 2012, 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, Yevgeny Nikolaevich Adikanko, born in 1977, residing in the city of Omsk, and Alexander Svyatoslavovich Basov-Grinev, born in 1952 in the city of Krasnodar, complained of a violation of their right to access to court.

 

On 13 March 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously decided to merge the complaints into one proceeding, found the complaints admissible and considered that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) against the applicant Basov-Grinev . The applicant Basov-Grinev did not demand fair compensation.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/486-adikanko-and-basov-grinev-v-russia .

 

 

Постановлении ЕСПЧ от 08 марта 2018 года по делу "Зализко (Zalizko) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 26503/07).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявительницы на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации, вынесенных против унитарного предприятия, заявительница также указывала на то, что она не располагала эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 1 статьи 6, статьи 13 Конвенции Конвенции о защите прав человека и статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции.

 

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

 

В своих жалобах заявительница жаловалась на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации, вынесенных против унитарного предприятия. Заявительница также указывала на то, что она не располагала эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

08 марта 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявительницей 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), статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявительнице 7 832 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/487-zalizko-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 8 March 2018 in the case of Zalizko v. The Russian Federation (application No. 26503/07).

 

The applicant successfully complained of the applicant's failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation against the unitary enterprise, the applicant also pointed out that she did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 6, paragraph 1, Article 13 of the Convention of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 

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

 

In her complaints, the applicant complained about non-compliance with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation against the unitary enterprise. The applicant also pointed out that she did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 8 March 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, 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 to the Convention (protection of property), Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 7,832 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/488-zalizko-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 марта 2018 года по делу "Дандаев и другие (Dandayev and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 51876/13, 70080/14, 16992/16, 35569/16, 44020/16 и 3803/17).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2013, 2014, 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 бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей.

 

08 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, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 53 900 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/489-dandayev-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 8 March 2018 in the case of Dandayev and Others v. Russia (applications no. 51876/13, 70080/14, 16992/16, 35569/16, 44020/16 and 3803/17).

 

The applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered in the case. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2013, 2014, 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 inhuman conditions of detention.

 

On 8 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 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all the applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 53,900 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/490-dandayev-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 марта 2018 года по делу "Хлыстов и другие (Khlystov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 19061/12, 45497/12, 72725/12, 9614/14, 6238/17 и 11256/17).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на то, что их право на справедливое судебное разбирательство было нарушено в связи с тем, что суды Российской Федерации не уведомили их надлежащим образом о разбирательствах, где они являлись сторонами в рамках гражданского процесса. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2012, 2014 и 2017 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители жаловались на то, что их право на справедливое судебное разбирательство было нарушено в связи с тем, что суды Российской Федерации не уведомили их надлежащим образом о разбирательствах, где заявители являлись сторонами в рамках гражданского процесса.

 

08 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), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям по каждой из шести жалоб по 1 500 евро.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/491-khlystov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 8 March 2018 in Khlystov and Others v. Russia (applications no. 19061/12, 45497/12, 72725/12, 9614/14, 6238/17 and 11256/17).

 

The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints that their right to a fair trial was violated because the courts of the Russian Federation did not notify them properly about proceedings where they were parties to the civil process. There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2012, 2014 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 complained that their right to a fair trial was violated because the courts of the Russian Federation did not notify them properly of the proceedings where the applicants were parties to the civil process.

 

On 8 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 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants for each of the six complaints of 1,500 Euro.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/492-khlystov-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

ECHR presuda od 2. svibnja 2017. godine u predmetu „Jurica (Jurica) protiv Hrvatske” (zahtjeva N 30376/13).

 

U 2013. godini, podnositelj zahtjeva je pomagao u pripremi zahtjeve. Nakon toga, zahtjeva je dostavljen Hrvatskoj.

 

U slučaju uspješno pregledao prigovor na navodne neučinkovitosti postupka na činjenicu nemara liječnika, očituje se u odnosu na podnositelja zahtjeva. U slučaju povrede članka 6. stavka 1. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda. Slučaj nije prekršio zahtjeve članka 8. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda.

 

 

 

OKOLNOSTI PREDMETA

 


Podnositelj je podnio zahtjev za naknadu štete zbog nemara liječnika, ali je njezin zahtjev odbijen, kada su domaći sudovi na temelju stručnog mišljenja priznaje da je pogoršanje njezina zdravlja je zbog komplikacija u njenom liječenju, a ne kazneno nemar.

 

Konvencije postupak podnositelj zahtjeva žalio, osobito činjenica da je pojam „medicinske nepažnje” nije ispravno definirano u domaćem pravnom sustavu, što je nemoguće dobiti sud za utvrđivanje odgovornosti za nesavjestan. Također se žalila da nije bilo moguće osigurati neovisno i nepristrano stručno mišljenje o nemaru liječnika u Hrvatskoj, budući da su stručni stručnjaci radili i surađivali s sumnjivim nemarnim liječnicima.

 


PITANJA PRAVA

 


U sudskoj praksi Europskog suda dosljedno je utvrdio da države imaju pozitivnu obvezu iz članka 8. Konvencije da osiguraju žrtvama liječničkog nemara, pristup postupku, u kojem se mogu dobiti naknadu ako je potrebno. Međutim, s obzirom na široku slobodu procjene dostupnih na državu u oblikovanju svoje zdravstvene politike i odabrati način izvršavanja svojih pozitivnih obveza i organizacije svojih pravosudnih sustava, nema osnova tvrditi da Konvencija zahtijeva poseban mehanizam kako bi se olakšalo predstavljanje zahtjeve u pogledu nemara liječnika na domaćoj razini.

 

Zahtjev za naknadu za medicinsku nepažnju u Hrvatskoj zbog zahtjeva za naknadom štete nije bio samo teorijska mogućnost. Bilo je slučajeva nadoknadiva šteta mjesta u Hrvatskoj, gdje je odgovornost proizlazi iz načela krivnje ili, posebno, obzirom na okolnosti na temelju objektivne odgovornosti.

 

S obzirom na objektivnost stručnih izvješća, činjenicu da je stručnjak je radio u javnom zdravstvene ustanove, posebno dizajniran za pripremu stručnih mišljenja o određenom pitanju, a koji se financiraju od strane države, ne samo po sebi opravdati zabrinutost zbog nedostatka neutralnosti ili nepristranošću. Hrvatsko zakonodavstvo je uspostavio niz postupovnih jamstava kako bi se osigurala pouzdanost stručnih mišljenja: na primjer, zakon obvezuje sud stručnjaci predstaviti svoje nalaze objektivno, nepristrano i na temelju njihovog znanja i diskvalifikacija sudaca pravila vrijede i za stručnjake. Da nema dokaza da ta jamstva nisu ispravno primjenjuje u predmetu podnositelja zahtjeva, te da su stručnjaci čije su zaključci bili osnova sudskih odluka u slučaju, ne pokazuju potrebnu objektivnost. Pored toga, domaći sudovi nisu samo dali pisane zaključke kao dokaz, već su saslušani relevantni zaključci na raspravi na otvorenom sudu u prisutnosti stranaka koji bi mogli postavljati pitanja. Dodatna i nova otkrića novih stručnjaka također su dodijeljena za daljnje razjašnjenje pitanja koja su ostala nejasna ili osporena.

 

Dakle, ne može se reći da vlasti nisu dati podnositelju učinkovito postupak koji omogućuje da se primaju naknadu za medicinske nepažnje, žrtva koja je, prema njezinoj izjavi, bila je.

 


ODLUKA

 


Zahtjevi iz članka 8. Konvencije nisu bili povrijeđeni (jednoglasno).

 

Sud je također jednoglasno utvrdio da je došlo do povrede članka 6. Konvencije zbog trajanja postupka, zahtjevi iz stavka 1. i dodijelio podnositelju 3.500 eura za nematerijalnu štetu u ovoj rubrici.

 

 

 

Izvor publikacije: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/477-jurica-protiv-hrvatske .

 

 

 

 

 

Decision of the ECHR of 02 May 2017 in the case "Jurica (Jurica) v. Croatia" (application No. 30376/13).

 

In 2013 the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Croatia.

 

The case was successfully considered a complaint about the alleged ineffectiveness of the trial as a result of medical negligence against the applicant. There has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The case did not violate the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant brought an action for damages in connection with the carelessness of doctors, but her request was rejected when the domestic courts found, on the basis of expert opinions, that the deterioration of her health was a consequence of the complications of her treatment, and not of criminal negligence.

 

In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained in particular that the notion of "medical negligence" was not properly defined in the domestic legal system, making it impossible to obtain a judicial determination of liability for the criminal negligence of the doctor. She also complained that it was not possible to provide an independent and impartial expert opinion on the negligence of doctors in Croatia, as competent experts worked and cooperated with suspected negligent doctors.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


The European Court's case-law has consistently established that States have a positive obligation under article 8 of the Convention to ensure that victims of carelessness of medical professionals have access to proceedings in which they can, if necessary, receive compensation. However, given the wide margin of discretion that states have in shaping their health policies and choosing how to fulfill their positive obligations and organize their judicial systems, there is no reason to argue that the Convention requires a special mechanism to promote the requirement of medical negligence at the domestic level.

 

The demand for compensation for medical negligence in Croatia due to the claim for damages was not only a theoretical possibility. There have been cases of awarding compensation for damage in Croatia, where liability has arisen from the principle of guilt or, in particular, circumstances on the basis of objective liability.

 

With regard to the objectivity of expert opinions, the fact that the expert worked in a public medical institution specifically designed for the preparation of expert opinions on a specific issue and funded by the state did not in itself justify the fear of lack of neutrality or impartiality. Croatian legislation has established a number of procedural safeguards to ensure the reliability of expert opinions: for example, the law obliged forensic experts to present their opinions objectively, impartially and on the basis of all their knowledge, and rules on the disqualification of judges were also applied to experts. There was no evidence that these guarantees were not properly applied in the applicant's case or that the experts whose conclusions formed the basis of the court decisions in the case did not show the required objectivity. In addition, the domestic courts not only took written conclusions as evidence, but also heard the relevant conclusions in an open court hearing in the presence of parties who could ask questions. Additional and new findings of new experts were also assigned to further clarify issues that remained unclear or contested.

 

Thus, it can not be asserted that the authorities failed to provide the applicant with an effective procedure that allowed her to receive compensation for the carelessness of medical personnel, the victim of which she allegedly was a victim.

 


DECISION

 


The requirements of Article 8 of the Convention were not violated (unanimously).

 

The Court also unanimously found that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in connection with the length of the proceedings and awarded the applicant 3,500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage on this ground.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/478-jurica-v-croatia .

 

 

Decizia CtEDO din 02 mai 2017 privind cazul "Vasiliciuc contra Republicii Moldova" (plângerea nr. 15944/11).

 

În anul 2011, reclamantul a fost asistat la pregătirea plângerii. Ulterior, plângerea a fost comunicată Republicii Moldova.

 

Cazul a examinat cu succes o plângere privind evitarea de către autorități a încercărilor rezonabile de informare a reclamantei cu privire la procedurile penale împotriva ei și la necesitatea apariției ei. Cazul a implicat o încălcare a cerințelor articolului 5 al Convenției pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANȚELE CAUZEI

 


Reclamantul, cetățean al Republicii Moldova cu reședința în Grecia, a fost oprit și pus la îndoială pe aeroportul din Chișinău din cauza bijuteriilor pe care le purta. După întoarcerea sa în Grecia, a fost deschis un caz penal în legătură cu tentativă de contrabandă cu bijuterii și a fost trimisă o chemare la adresa ei în Republica Moldova. La 19 iunie 2009, instanța districtuală din Republica Moldova a hotărât să-l încarneze pe reclamant pe motiv că nu a fost prezentată la citația autorităților de anchetă. Reclamantul a aflat de detenție și a depus o cerere de abolire, citând faptul că nu a știut despre procedurile penale împotriva ei. Cererea și reclamația ei au fost respinse. În 2011, reclamantul a fost reținut în Grecia pe baza unui mandat internațional de arestare și deținut pentru extrădare timp de 23 de zile.

 

În cadrul procedurii convenționale, reclamantul sa plâns, în temeiul articolului 5 din Convenție, că ordinul de reținere eliberat împotriva sa de către autoritățile Republicii Moldova nu sa bazat pe motive relevante și suficiente.

 


ASPECTE ALE LEGII

 


a) Cu privire la admisibilitatea plângerii. Reclamantul a fost sub controlul și autoritatea autorităților elene în timpul detenției sale în Grecia și până la eliberarea din custodie. Privarea privativă de libertate sa bazat pe măsurile luate de autoritățile Republicii Moldova, și anume mandatul internațional de arestare emis de Interpol la cererea acestora. În cadrul procedurilor de eliberare a statului solicitat ar trebui să poată să se presupună validitatea actelor juridice emise de către statul solicitant, pe baza cărora închisoarea solicitată. În plus, țara care solicită extrădarea trebuie să asigure legalitatea cererii de detenție și extrădare din perspectiva dreptului intern, precum și a Convenției. Prin urmare, actul atacat de reclamant, care a fost adoptată la inițiativa autorităților din Republica Moldova în baza legislației sale și executate de către autoritățile din Grecia, în conformitate cu obligațiile sale internaționale, să fie imputată autorităților Republicii Moldova, în ciuda faptului că a avut loc în Grecia.

 

(b) merite. Privarea de libertate a reclamantului în Grecia este o consecință directă a deciziei privind un ordin de reținere din 19 iunie 2009, în caz contrar închisoarea în Grecia ar fi fost imposibil. Acest fapt a fost semnalat direct de instanțele elene în deciziile lor privind extrădarea reclamantului. detenția reclamantului în Grecia, deși se realizează în mod formal în scopul eliberării face parte din mecanismul utilizat de către autoritățile din Republica Moldova, în conformitate cu un ordin de detenție în afara granițelor Moldovei.

 

Motivul deciziei privind detenția reclamantului, citată de instanțele din Republica Moldova, a fost faptul că reclamantul nu sa prezentat în fața autorităților de anchetă în cadrul citației. Cu toate acestea, solicitantul a părăsit legal țara într-un moment în care nu a fost luată o acțiune penală împotriva ei. Autoritățile au deschis o cauză penală împotriva ei după ce a plecat în străinătate. Ea a furnizat autorităților datele de contact din Grecia, însă, în ciuda acestui fapt, procurorii au continuat să trimită o chemare la adresa ei din Moldova. Procurorii nu au încercat să verifice informațiile pe care le-a făcut în Grecia și nu au făcut încercări rezonabile să o informeze despre procedurile penale și despre necesitatea apariției.

 

Autoritățile au ales o abordare foarte formală a problemei chemării reclamantului și, după absența ei, au concluzionat în grabă că se ascundea. Refuzul instanțelor din Republica Moldova, prin verificarea argumentele reclamantei privind notificarea improprie și o oportunitate de a apărea convins Curtea că reclamantul nu a putut fi considerată ca fiind necesară și lipsită de arbitrar.

 


DECIZIE

 


În caz de încălcare a cerințelor articolului 5 al Convenției (în unanimitate) a fost comisă.

 


COMPENSARE

 


În aplicarea articolului 41 al Convenției. Curtea a acordat reclamantului suma de 3000 EUR cu titlu de prejudiciu moral.

 

 

 

Sursa de publicare: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/479-vasiliciuc-contra-republicii-moldova .

 

 

 

 

 

Decision of the ECHR of 02 May 2017 on the case "Vasiliciuc v. Republic of Moldova" (application No. 15944/11).

 

In 2011, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Republic of Moldova.

 

The case successfully examined a complaint about the authorities' avoidance of reasonable attempts to inform the applicant about the criminal proceedings against her and the need for her appearance. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant, a citizen of the Republic of Moldova residing in Greece, was stopped and questioned at the airport in Chisinau because of the jewelry she was carrying. After her return to Greece, a criminal case was opened against her in connection with the attempted smuggling of jewelry, and she was sent a summons to her address in the Republic of Moldova. On June 19, 2009, the Moldovan district court decided to incarcerate the applicant on the grounds that she did not appear at the summons of the investigating authorities. The applicant learned of the detention and filed an application for his abolition, citing the fact that she did not know about the criminal proceedings against her. Her application and complaint were rejected. In 2011, the applicant was detained in Greece on the basis of an international arrest warrant and detained for extradition for 23 days.

 

In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that the detention order issued against her by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


(a) Admissibility of the complaint. The applicant was under the control and authority of the Greek authorities during her detention in Greece and until her release from custody. The deprivation of liberty was based on the measures taken by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova, namely the international arrest warrant issued by Interpol upon their request. In the context of the extradition procedure, the requested State should be able to presume the validity of legal documents issued by the requesting State on the basis of which the deprivation of liberty is requested. In addition, the country requesting extradition must ensure the legality of the request for detention and extradition from the perspective of domestic law, as well as the Convention. Accordingly, the act appealed by the applicant, which was initiated by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova on the basis of its legislation and executed by the Greek authorities in accordance with its international obligations, must be imputed to the authorities of the Republic of Moldova, despite the fact that it was committed in Greece.

 

(b) Merits. The applicant's deprivation of liberty in Greece was a direct result of the detention order of 19 June 2009, in the absence of which the deprivation of liberty in Greece would have been impossible. This fact was directly noted by the Greek courts in their decisions on the extradition of the applicant. The applicant's detention in Greece, although formally carried out for the purpose of extradition, was part of the mechanism used by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova to enforce the detention order outside the borders of Moldova.

 

The reason for the decision on the applicant's detention, cited by the courts of the Republic of Moldova, was the fact that the applicant did not appear before the investigating authorities on their summons. However, the applicant legally left the country at a time when no criminal proceedings had been taken against her. The authorities opened a criminal case against her after she went abroad. She provided the authorities with her contact details in Greece, but despite this, prosecutors continued to send out summons on her Moldovan address. Prosecutors made no attempt to verify information that she was in Greece and did not make reasonable attempts to inform her about the criminal proceedings and the need for appearance.

 

The authorities chose a very formal approach to the problem of the applicant's call and, after her absence, hastily concluded that she was hiding. The refusal of the courts of the Republic of Moldova to verify the applicant's arguments about improper notification and the possibility of her appearance provided the Court with the assurance that the applicant's detention could not be considered necessary and deprived of her will.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/480-vasiliciuc-v-republic-of-moldova .

 

 

Постанова ЄСПЛ від 27 травня 2017 року по справі "Жердєв проти України (Zherdev v. Ukraine)" (заява N 34015/07).

 

У 2007 році заявнику була надана допомога в підготовці заяви. Згодом заява була комунікувати Україні.

 

У справі успішно розглянута скарга на принижуюче гідність поводження при затриманні. У справі допущено порушення вимог статті 3 Конвенції про захист прав людини і основних свобод.

 

 

 

Обставини справи

 


Заявник, якому було 16 років, був допитаний в міліції в зв'язку з розслідуванням вбивства. Він знаходився в нижній білизні протягом декількох годин, а потім був поміщений в камеру до дорослих.

 


Питання права

 


З приводу виконання вимог статті 3 Конвенції (матеріально-правовий аспект). Заявник перебував у наручниках і одній нижній білизні в відділі міліції протягом не менше, ніж двох з половиною годин. Влада явно мали поважну причину для вилучення у нього одягу, яка могла бути речовим доказом його причетності до злочину. Однак навіть за відсутності у Європейського Суду доказів того, що влада мала намір принизити або образити його, заявник був неповнолітнім, і не були представлені пояснення з приводу ненадання йому змінного одягу або якогось покривала і змісту його в наручниках протягом не менше, ніж двох з половиною годин. Заявник стверджував, що подія справило на нього особливо сильне враження на увазі можливості того, що він міг бути звинувачений в статевому злочині і тому підданий ризику зґвалтування у в'язниці.

 

Той факт, що заявник, неповнолітній і раніше не судимий, був залишений в наручниках і майже без одягу протягом не менше ніж двох з половиною годин в стані невизначеності і уразливості, міг сам по собі вважатися породжує питання відповідно до статті 3 Конвенції. Крім того, його приміщення в порушення законодавства країни в камеру з дорослими ув'язненими на наступні три дні могло сприяти виникненню у нього почуттів страху, туги, безпорадності і неповноцінності і також зменшувало його гідність.

 

Таким чином, заявник зазнав такому, що принижує гідність, поводженню.

 


Постанова

 


У справі допущено порушення вимог статті 3 Конвенції (прийнято одноголосно).

 


Компенсація

 


В порядку застосування статті 41 Конвенції. Європейський Суд присудив виплатити заявникові 8 000 євро в якості компенсації моральної шкоди.

 

Європейський Суд також одноголосно встановив порушення процесуального аспекту статті 3 Конвенції, порушення пункту 3 статті 5 Конвенції з урахуванням тривалості утримання під вартою заявника і що у справі не було порушено вимоги пунктів 1 і 3 статті 6 Конвенції, що стосується справедливості кримінального провадження проти нього.

 

 

 

Джерело публікації: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/481-zherdev-proti-ukraini .

 

 

 

 

 

Decision of the ECHR of 27 May 2017 on the case "Zherdev v. Ukraine" (application No. 34015/07).

 

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

 

A complaint on degrading treatment during detention was successfully considered in the case. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

The circumstances of the case

 


The applicant, who was 16 years old, was questioned by the police in connection with the investigation of the murder. He was in his underwear for several hours, and then was placed in the cell to adults.

 


Law issues

 


Concerning compliance with Article 3 of the Convention (substantive aspect). The applicant was handcuffed and one underwear in the police department for at least two and a half hours. The authorities clearly had a valid reason for taking away his clothes, which could be material evidence of his involvement in the crime. However, even in the absence of evidence from the European Court that the authorities intended to humiliate or insult him, the applicant was a minor, and no explanation was given regarding the failure to provide him with a change of clothing or some cover and keeping him handcuffed for not less than two and a half hours. The applicant argued that the incident made him particularly impressed by the possibility that he could be charged with a sex offense and therefore at risk of rape in prison.

 

The fact that the applicant, a minor and previously unconvicted, was handcuffed and almost without clothes for at least two and a half hours in a state of uncertainty and vulnerability could in itself be considered to generate a matter in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention. In addition, his placement in violation of the country's legislation in a cell with adult prisoners for the next three days could contribute to his feelings of fear, sadness, helplessness and inferiority and also diminished his dignity.

 

Thus, the applicant was subjected to degrading treatment.

 


Resolution

 


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 Court awarded EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant.

 

The Court also unanimously found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, taking into account the length of the applicant's detention and that the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention were not violated as to the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/482-zherdev-v-ukraine .