Новости от 27 июля 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 27 февраля 2018 года по делу "Исайкин (Isaykin) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 53048/10).
По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
В 2010 году заявителю была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.
В своей жалобе заявитель жаловался на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей.
27 февраля 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 6 250 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/493-isaykin-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of 27 February 2018 in the case of Isaykin (Isaykin) v. Russian Federation (application No. 53048/10).
The applicant's complaint on inhuman conditions of 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.
In 2010, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained about inhuman conditions of detention.
On 27 February 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) and ordered the respondent State to pay EUR 6,250 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/494-isaykin-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 27 февраля 2018 года по делу "Шатохин (Shatokhin) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 50236/06).
По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя, страдающего различными заболеваниями и которому по состоянию здоровья было противопоказано одиночное заключение, на то, что помещение его одного в штрафной изолятор нарушало его права. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 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, страдающий различными заболеваниями и которому по состоянию здоровья было противопоказано одиночное заключение, жаловался на то, что помещение его одного в штрафной изолятор нарушало его права.
27 февраля 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 15 000 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/495-shatokhin-protiv-rossii .
The ECHR judgment of February 27, 2018 in the case of Shatokhin v. Russia (application no. 50236/06).
In the case, the complaint of the applicant, suffering from various diseases, was successfully considered and for which a solitary confinement was contraindicated for health reasons, the fact that placing him alone in the punishment cell would violate his rights. There has been a violation of Article 3 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 complainant, suffering from various diseases and who was contraindicated for solitary confinement by solitary confinement, complained that the placement of his one in the punishment cell had violated his rights.
On 27 February 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/496-shatokhin-v-russia .
Hamburgas pilsētā (Vācija). Bez paziņojuma par pieteikuma iesniedzēju, viņas vīrs pēc tam uzsāka laulības šķiršanas procesu Latvijā. Viņš pastāstīja šķiršanās lietu tiesā, ka viņš nezina viņas adresi. Pēc sākotnējā neveiksmīgā mēģinājuma iesniegt pieteikuma iesniedzējam dokumentus par laulības šķiršanu viņas adresē Rīgā, šķiršanās tiesa piegādāja piegādi divos paziņojumos Latvijas oficiālajā laikrakstā. Bez informācijas par tiesvedību prasītājs nepiedalījās tiesas sēdē, un laulības šķiršana tika paziņota viņas prombūtnes laikā. Konventa tiesvedībā viņa saskaņā ar Konvencijas 6. panta 1. punktu sūdzējās, ka viņai ir atteikta lietas taisnīga izskatīšana.
Tiesību jautājumi
Par atbilstību Konvencijas 6. panta 1. punktam. Salīdzinošais juridiskais pētījums par dokumentu izsniegšanas procedūrām 31 Eiropas Padomes dalībvalstī ir parādījis, ka prasītājiem ir jānorāda atbildētāja adrese. Ja adrese nav zināma, tā būtu jāveic iespējamo, lai noteiktu to dažās valstīs valsts tiesā, un otra - prasītājam vai citu personu, piemēram, prokurora, tiesu izpildītājs vai īpašā pārstāvja. Tomēr Tiesa uzsvēra, ka neatkarīgi no tā, kāda pieeja ir izvēlēta, iestādēm ir jārīkojas ar pienācīgu rūpību, lai nodrošinātu, ka atbildētāji tiktu informēts par tiesvedību un ir iespēja ierasties tiesā un aizstāvēt sevi.
Latvijas likumdošana neprasīja valsts tiesām veikt pamatotus pasākumus, lai pēc savas iniciatīvas noteiktu atbildētāja dzīvesvietu. Nebija arī neviena cita persona, ir pienākums pārbaudīt, vai pastāv kāds, nemaz nerunājot prasītāja veikusi pietiekamus pasākumus, lai noteiktu atbildētāja adresi vai sniegt galvojumu, situācijā, kurā pieteikuma iesniedzējs nav ieinteresēts, lai noteiktu to rezidenci atbildētāja vai slēpt šo informāciju no tiesas. Tiesa uzsvēra, ka svarīgu uzdevumu informēt respondentus par viņu uzsākto procesu nevarēja attiecināt uz prasītāju. Turklāt Konvencijas dalībvalstu tiesām ir jāpārbauda, vai prasītāja iesniegtā informācija ir patiesa. Tomēr šajā lietā, neraugoties uz vairākām pazīmēm, ka vīram tika paziņots par pieteikuma iesniedzēja dzīvesvietu, šķiršanās tiesa nemēģināja noteikt paziņotās informācijas patiesumu. Tādējādi laulības šķiršanas lieta nav saderīga ar taisnīgas tiesas prasībām.
Izšķirtspēja
Tika izdarīts Konvencijas 6. panta (vienprātīgi) prasību pārkāpums.
Kompensācija
Piemērojot Konvencijas 41. pantu. Tiesa prasītājai piešķīra EUR 5000 attiecībā uz morālo kaitējumu.
Publicēšanas avots: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/497-schmidt-pret-latviju .
The ECHR judgment of 27 April 2017 in the case "Schmidt v. Latvia" (application No. 22493/05).
In 2005, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Latvia.
In the case, a complaint was successfully considered regarding the evasion of the court for divorce cases from the proper provision of the defendant's notification. In the case of violation of the requirements of Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The circumstances of the case
The applicant divorced her husband, with whom she lived in the city of Riga (Latvia), and moved to the former residence of the couple in the city of Hamburg (Germany). Without notification of the applicant, her husband subsequently initiated a divorce proceedings in Latvia. He told the court on divorce cases that he did not know her address. After the initial unsuccessful attempt to give the applicant documents on the divorce at her address in Riga, the divorce court delivered the delivery in two notices in a Latvian official newspaper. Without information on the proceedings, the applicant did not participate in the hearing, and the divorce was announced in her absence. In the Convention proceedings, she complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she was refused a fair trial of the case.
Law issues
Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. A comparative legal study on the procedures for the delivery of documents in 31 member states of the Council of Europe has shown that the plaintiffs are required to indicate the defendant's address. If the address is not known, reasonable efforts should be made to establish it in some States by the courts of the country, and in others - by the plaintiff or other party, such as the prosecutor, bailiff or special representative. However, the Court emphasized that, regardless of which approach was chosen, the authorities had to act with due diligence to ensure that the defendants were notified of the proceedings and had the opportunity to appear before the courts and defend themselves.
The legislation of Latvia did not require the courts of the country to take reasonable measures to establish the defendant's residence on their own initiative. There was also no other person obliged to verify whether the plaintiff had taken any measures, not to mention sufficient, to establish the defendant's address, or to provide guarantees in a situation in which the plaintiff is not interested in locating the defendant's residence or hiding this information from the court. The Court emphasized that the important task of notifying respondents about the proceedings instituted against them could not be attributed to the plaintiff. In addition, the courts of States parties to the Convention must verify the truthfulness of the information submitted to them by the plaintiff. However, in the present case, despite several indications that the husband was notified of the applicant's place of residence, the divorce court did not attempt to establish the truthfulness of the information he had communicated. Thus, the divorce proceedings were incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial.
Resolution
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 EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/498-schmidt-v-latvia .
Sodba ESČP z dne 25. aprila 2017 v zadevi Vaskrsic proti Sloveniji (pritožba št. 31371/12).
V letu 2012 je pritožniku pomagal pri pripravi pritožbe. Kasneje je bila pritožba posredovana Sloveniji.
Pritožba o prodaji hiške tožeče stranke na javni dražbi za izvršitev odločbe o izterjavi 124 evrov je bila v obravnavanem primeru uspešno obravnavana. Kršitev člena 1 Protokola št. 1 h Konvenciji o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin je bila kršena.
OKOLIŠČINE DELA
hiša tožeče stranke je bila obremenjena in prodaja na javni dražbi za polovico tržne vrednosti za namene izvršitve sodne odločbe z zahtevo za ceno okoli 124 evrov, potem ko je tožeča stranka večkrat izognil izvršitve plačila terjatev. V konvencionalnem postopku se je pritožil na kršitev člena 1 Protokola št. 1 h Konvenciji.
VPRAŠANJA ZAKONA
V zvezi s spoštovanjem člena 1 Protokola št. 1 h Konvenciji. Poseg v pravico tožeče stranke do spoštovanja svojega premoženja je bila predpisana z zakonom in zasleduje legitimen cilj varovanja interesov upnikov in kupca hiše. Vendar je bil ta ukrep očitno nesorazmeren.
V tem primeru je treba opozoriti, da je bila velikost dolga, da je posojilodajalec prejela s prodajo, zanemarljiv (približno 500 evrov, vključno z obrestmi in stroški izvedbe) doma tožeče stranke.
Hiša je bila prodana za polovico svoje tržne vrednosti, če domače sodišče ni preučilo alternativnih ukrepov. To se je zgodilo kljub temu, da (i) je tožeča stranka, očitno je bila zaposlena in je mesečni dohodek, (ii) upnik je dejansko hkrati zahteval izvršbo zaradi zasega plače plačila prosilca in njegov bančni račun, in ( (iii) drugi upnik je uspešno izterjal precej večji dolg zaradi zasega bančnega računa tožeče stranke.
Medtem ko Sodišče pripisuje velik pomen zagotavljanju učinkovitega izvršilnega postopka upnikom, v obravnavanem primeru ni bilo ugotovljeno, da je potrebna sodna prodaja domov tožeče stranke.
Ob upoštevanju, predvsem majhnost dolga in pomanjkanje upoštevanja a bolj primerna in manj obremenjujočih ukrepov, slovenski organi niso pravično ravnotežje med zastavljenim ciljem in ukrepi, sprejeti v izvršilnem postopku zoper pritožnika.
SKLEP
Primer je bil kršitev zahtev člena 1 Protokola št. 1 (soglasno sprejeto).
NADOMESTILO
Pri uporabi člena 41 Konvencije. Sodišče je tožeči stranki podelila 77.000 evrov za nepremoženjsko škodo (ki je (i) razlika med tržno vrednostjo hiše tožeče stranke in doseženo na dražbi ceno, in (ii) obresti) in 3000 evrov v nepremoženjsko škodo.
Vir izdaje: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/499-vaskrsic-proti-sloveniji .
The ECHR judgment of 25 April 2017 in the case of Vaskrsic v. Slovenia (application No. 31371/12).
In 2012, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Slovenia.
The complaint on the sale of the applicant's house at a public auction for the execution of the decision on recovery of 124 euros was successfully considered in the case. There has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant's house was encumbered and sold from a public auction for half the market value in order to enforce the judgment with a claim price of approximately EUR 124 after the applicant repeatedly evaded payment claims. In the conventional proceedings, he complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The interference with the applicant's right to respect for his property was provided for by law and pursued a legitimate aim of protecting the interests of creditors and the purchaser of the home. However, this measure was clearly disproportionate.
However, the Court noted that the amount of debt that the creditor received from the sale of the applicant's house was insignificant (about 500 euros, taking into account interest and executive costs).
The house was sold for half of its market value in the absence of consideration by the domestic court of alternative measures. This happened despite the fact that (i) the applicant appeared to be employed and had a monthly income, (ii) the lender actually at the same time requested performance by imposing seizures on the salary of the applicant and his bank account, and ( (iii) another creditor successfully recovered a much larger debt as a result of the seizure of the applicant's bank account.
While the Court attaches great importance to the provision of effective enforcement proceedings to creditors, in the present case, it has not been established that a judicial sale of the applicant's home is necessary.
In view of, inter alia, the small amount of arrears and the lack of consideration of more appropriate and less burdensome measures, the authorities of Slovenia did not establish a fair balance between the aim pursued and the measures taken in the enforcement proceedings against the applicant.
DECISION
The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (unanimously adopted).
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 77,000 in respect of pecuniary damage (which is (i) the difference between the market value of the applicant's house and the price attained at the auction, and (ii) the interest) and EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/500-vaskrsic-v-slovenia .
AİHM tərəfindən "Hüseynova v. Azərbaycan" iddiası (ərizə № 10653/10) üzrə 13 aprel 2017-ci il tarixli qərar.
2010-cu ildə ərizəçiyə şikayətin hazırlanmasında kömək edilmişdir. Sonradan ərizə Azərbaycana göndərildi.
Bu iş ərizəçinin şikayətini müvəffəqiyyətlə araşdırdı, hökumətini tənqid edən bir jurnalistin ərinin öldürülməsi ilə bağlı səmərəli istintaqın olmaması. Bu iş Konvensiyanın İnsan Hüquqlarının və Əsas Azadlıqlarının Müdafiəsi haqqında Konvensiyasının 2-ci maddəsinin tələblərini pozdu.
CƏMİYYƏTİN DAXİLİ
Onun həyat yoldaşı Elmar Hüseynov Azərbaycanda tanınmış müstəqil jurnalistdir. 2005-ci ilin mart ayında işdən yola düşmüşdü. Cinayət işi açılıb və iki Gürcüstan vətəndaşı şübhəli şəxslər tərəfindən müəyyənləşdirilib. Gürcüstan hakimiyyəti onları Gürcüstandan Azərbaycana təhvil verməkdən imtina etdi. Konvensiyanın icraatı ərizəçi ərinin dövlət agentləri tərəfindən öldürüldüyünü və cavabdeh dövlətin orqanları onun qətli adekvat və səmərəli araşdırma aparmaq üçün uğursuz ki, Konvensiyanın 2-ci maddəsinə əsasən şikayət.
HÜQUQ MƏSƏLƏLƏRİ
Konvensiyanın 2-ci Maddəsinə (maddi hüquq) uyğunluğuna gəldikdə. Məhkəməsi imkan Data ərizəçinin əri, hakimiyyət idi dövlət nümayəndələri və ya onun cinayət tərəfindən qətlə yox idi ki, əsaslı şübhə kənarda yaratmaq. Məhkəmə həmçinin Azərbaycan hakimiyyəti bilirdi və ya ərizəçinin ərinin həyatına real və bilavasitə təhlükə mövcudluğu zamanı məlum olmalıdır və həyat hüququnu qorumaq üçün uğursuz olduğunu ifadə edən məlumat yoxdur.
QƏRAR
Konvensiyanın 2-ci maddəsinin tələbləri pozulmadı (yekdilliklə).
Konvensiyanın 2-ci maddəsinə (prosessual aspekt) riayət olunmasına gəldikdə. Belə Ekstradisiya haqqında Avropa Konvensiyası və 1993 Minsk Konvensiyası hər iki Dövlətin tərəflər olan bir partiya, Beynəlxalq alətləri aydın Gürcüstanda cinayət ittiham hesab Gürcüstan orqanlarına cinayət prosesinin transferi üçün təmin edir. Həqiqətən, Gürcüstan hakimiyyəti bu imkanları birbaşa ekstradisiya tələbinə cavab olaraq göstərdi. Azərbaycan hakimiyyətinin belə bir fürsətə baxması barədə heç bir məlumat yoxdur.
Ərizəçi hazırkı işdə zərər çəkmiş olmasına baxmayaraq, istintaq orqanları daima iş materialları ilə tanış olmaqdan imtina ediblər. Azərbaycanın müvafiq qanunvericiliyində bu hüququ təmin edilməmişdir və Avropa Məhkəməsi bu vəziyyəti qəbuledilməz hesab etmişdir. Mövcud vəziyyət ərizəçini onun qanuni mənafelərini qorumaq və istintaqa ictimai nəzarətin qarşısını almaq imkanından məhrum etdi.
nəzərə ərizəçinin iddiaları ərinin qətli onun jurnalist fəaliyyəti ilə bağlı iddianın ümumi faktiki kontekstində alaraq, bu inanılmaz deyildi. Özü müstəqil olaraq nəşr olunan jurnal Azərbaycanın hakimiyyətini və müxalifətini kəskin tənqid edən nüfuza malikdir. Hökumət dərc və yayımına müdaxilə etdi və ərizəçinin ərinə qarşı 30-dan çox mülki və cinayət işi açıldı. Qətlinin ölkənin digər jurnalistlərinin işinə təsir göstərə biləcəyi aydın oldu. Belə olan halda, diqqətlə onun jurnalist fəaliyyəti ilə bağlı planlaşdırılmış edilmişdir görünür bir cinayət olub, lazımi səy ilə yoxlamaq üçün bir səbəb yox idi. Azərbaycan hakimiyyəti ərizəçinin ərinin öldürülməsinə dair hallar barədə kifayət qədər və effektiv araşdırma apara bilmədi.
QƏRAR
Konvensiyanın 2-ci maddəsinin tələblərini pozması (yekdilliklə) işdə törədilmişdir.
KOMPANZASİYA
Konvensiyanın 41-ci maddəsinin tətbiqi ilə. Məhkəmə ərizəçiyə mənəvi zərərə görə 20 min avro (EUR) verdilər.
Nəşrin mənbəyi: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/501-h-seynova-v-az-rbaycan .
The ECHR judgment of 13 April 2017 on the case "Huseynova v. Azerbaijan" (application No. 10653/10).
In 2010, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Azerbaijan.
The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint about the lack of an effective investigation into the murder of her husband, a journalist critical of the government. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
Her husband, Elmar Huseynov, was a well-known independent journalist in Azerbaijan. In March 2005, he was shot down the road from work to his home. A criminal case was opened and two Georgian citizens were identified as suspects. The Georgian authorities refused to extradite them from Georgia to Azerbaijan. In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that her husband had been killed by State agents and that the respondent Government had not adequately and effectively investigated his murder.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 2 of the Convention (substantive law). Data that allow the Court to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the applicant's husband was killed by State agents or that the authorities were behind his murder were missing. The Court also does not have data indicating that the Azerbaijani authorities knew or should have known at that time of the existence of a real and immediate threat to the life of the applicant's husband and could not protect his right to life.
DECISION
The requirements of Article 2 of the Convention were not violated (unanimously).
Concerning compliance with Article 2 of the Convention (procedural aspect). International instruments, such as the European Convention on Extradition and the 1993 Minsk Convention, to which both States were parties, clearly provided for the transfer of a criminal case to the Georgian authorities to consider the charge of murder in Georgia. Indeed, the Georgian authorities directly indicated this possibility in their response to the request for extradition. There is no information on the consideration by the authorities of Azerbaijan of such an opportunity.
Even though the applicant was recognized as a victim in the present case, the investigating authorities constantly refused to familiarize herself with the case materials. The relevant legislation of Azerbaijan did not provide for this right of access, and the European Court found this situation unacceptable. The current situation deprived the applicant of the opportunity to protect her legitimate interests and prevented public control over the investigation.
Given the general factual context of the case of the applicant's allegation that her husband's murder was linked to his journalistic activities, it did not seem improbable. The journal, which he published independently, had a reputation sharply critical of the authorities of Azerbaijan and the opposition. The authorities intervened in its publication and distribution, and more than 30 civil and criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant's husband. It was obvious that his murder could have a deterrent effect on the work of other journalists of the country. Under such circumstances, there were grounds for checking with due diligence whether the murder, which, it seems, had been carefully planned, was connected with his journalistic activities. The Azerbaijani authorities were unable to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the murder of the applicant's husband.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/502-huseynova-v-azerbaijan .