Москва
+7-929-527-81-33
Вологда
+7-921-234-45-78
Вопрос юристу онлайн Юридическая компания ЛЕГАС Вконтакте

Новости от 31 июля 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 31.07.2018 07:42

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 22 февраля 2018 года по делу "Ачилов и другие (Achilov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 45075/15, 31553/16, 39854/16, 1931/17, 4215/17, 9848/17 и 11144/17).

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении всех заявителей и статьи 13 Конвенции в отношении некоторых заявителей.

В 2015, 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. Отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

22 февраля 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток) в отношении всех заявителей, требование статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты) в отношении отдельных заявителей, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 56 100 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/532-achilov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

The ECHR judgment of 22 February 2018 in the case of Achilov and Others v. Russia (applications no. 45075/15, 31553/16, 39854/16, 1931/17, 4215/17, 9848/17 and 11144 / 17).

The case had successfully addressed complaints of inhuman conditions of detention, some of the applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case involved a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to all the applicants and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of certain applicants.

In 2015, 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. Individual applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

On 22 February 2018, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 56,100 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/533-achilov-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 22 февраля 2018 года по делу "Коханова и другие (Kokhanova and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 67520/10, 59847/14, 62271/14, 63688/14, 19677/16, 73599/16 и 1050/17).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении всех заявителей и статьи 13 Конвенции в отношении некоторых заявителей.

 

В 2010, 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. Отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

22 февраля 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток) в отношении всех заявителей, требование статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты) в отношении отдельных заявителей, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 81 900 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/534-kokhanova-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 22 February 2018 in the case of Kokhanova and Others v. Russia (applications N 67520/10, 59847/14, 62271/14, 63688/14, 19677/16, 73599/16 and 1050 / 17).

 

The case had successfully addressed complaints of inhuman conditions of detention, some of the applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case involved a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to all the applicants and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of certain applicants.

 

In 2010, 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. Individual applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 22 February 2018, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 81 900 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/535-kokhanova-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 22 февраля 2018 года по делу "Разумов и другие (Razumov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 65197/16, 65201/16, 65203/16, 65236/16, 73751/16, 75330/16, 5084/17, 10425/17, 17798/17 и 17804/17).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в отношении всех заявителей и статьи 13 Конвенции в отношении некоторых заявителей.

 

В 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. Отдельные заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

22 февраля 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток) в отношении всех заявителей, требование статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты) в отношении отдельных заявителей, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 54 300 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/536-razumov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 22 February 2018 in the case of Razumov and Others v. Russia (applications no. 65197/16, 65201/16, 65203/16, 65236/16, 73751/16, 75330/16, 5084 / 17, 10425/17, 17798/17 and 17804/17).

 

The case had successfully addressed complaints of inhuman conditions of detention, some of the applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. The case involved a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with respect to all the applicants and Article 13 of the Convention in respect of certain applicants.

 

In 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. Individual applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 22 February 2018, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 54,300 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/537-razumov-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 20 февраля 2018 года по делу "Бойко (Boyko) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 42259/07).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя на чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда и на то, что его жалоба об избрании ему меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу не была рассмотрена безотлагательно. Заявитель также указывал, что не имел свидания с членами своей семьи и священниками во время, когда проходило предварительное следствие, и на то, что его адвокат не была допущена к нему в следственный изолятор для написания жалобы в Европейский Суд. По делу допущено нарушение требований пунктов 3 и 4 статьи 5 Конвенции, статьи 8 Конвенции, статьи 9 Конвенции, статьи 34 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 чрезмерную длительность содержания под стражей до суда и на то, что его жалоба об избрании ему меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу не была рассмотрена безотлагательно. Заявитель также указывал, что не имел свидания с членами своей семьи и священниками во время, когда проходило предварительное следствие, и на то, что его адвокат не была допущена к нему в следственный изолятор для написания жалобы в Европейский Суд.

 

20 февраля 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пунктов 3 и 4 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность), статьи 8 Конвенции (право на уважение частной и семейной жизни), статьи 9 Конвенции (свобода мысли, совести и религии), статьи 34 (индивидуальные жалобы), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 7 500 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/538-boyko-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

Decision of the ECHR of February 20, 2018 in the case of Boyko v. Russia (application No. 42259/07).

 

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint about the excessive length of pre-trial detention and that his complaint about his choice of a preventive measure in the form of detention was not immediately examined. The applicant also pointed out that he had not had meetings with his family members and priests during the preliminary investigation and that his lawyer had not been admitted to the detention facility to write a complaint to the Court. The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Convention, Article 8 of the Convention, Article 9 of the Convention, and Article 34 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention and that his complaint about his choice of a preventive measure in the form of detention was not immediately examined. The applicant also pointed out that he had not had meetings with his family members and priests during the preliminary investigation and that his lawyer had not been admitted to the detention facility to write a complaint to the Court.

 

On 20 February 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person), Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) , article 9 of the Convention (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), article 34 (individual complaints), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/539-boyko-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 20 февраля 2018 года по делу "Х. (X.) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 3150/15).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя на то, что его принудительная госпитализация в психиатрический стационар не была законной, так как не имела надлежащих оснований и имели место иные процессуальные упущения в ходе судебного рассмотрения этого вопроса. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 1 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2015 году заявителю была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.

 

В своей жалобе заявитель жаловался на то, что его принудительная госпитализация в психиатрический стационар не была законной, так как не имела надлежащих оснований и имели место иные процессуальные упущения в ходе судебного рассмотрения этого вопроса.

 

20 февраля 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пункта 1 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/540-x-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 20 February 2018 in the case "H. (X.) v. Russian Federation" (application No. 3150/15).

 

The applicant successfully complained that his forced admission to a psychiatric hospital was not legal, because he had no proper grounds and there were other procedural omissions during the judicial consideration of this issue. The case involved a violation of the requirements of article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2015, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant complained that his compulsory admission to a psychiatric hospital was not legal, since he had no proper grounds and there were other procedural omissions in the course of judicial consideration of this issue.

 

On 20 February 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of moral harm.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/541-x-v-russia .

 

 

Presuda Europskog suda od 4. travnja 2017. u predmetu Matanović protiv Hrvatske (zahtjeva br. 2742/12).

 

Tijekom 2012. godine, podnositelj zahtjeva je pomagao u pripremi zahtjeve. Nakon toga, zahtjeva je priopćen Hrvatskoj.

 

Slučaj je uspješno ispitivao žalbu podnositelja zahtjeva zbog nedostatka učinkovitog sudskog postupka kako bi se utvrdilo da li su dokazi prikupljeni od strane tužiteljstva trebali biti dostavljeni obrani. Došlo je do povrede članka 6. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda. Slučaj nije prekršio odredbe članka 8. i članka 6. stavka 1. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda.

 

 

 

OKOLNOSTI PREDMETA

 


Podnositelj zahtjeva, javni dužnosnik, stavljen je pod posebnim nadzorom kao dio istrage navodne korupcije. Kasnije, on i nekoliko drugih suoptuženika osuđeni su na razne zločine i osuđeni na 11 godina zatvora. Dokazi protiv njega uključuju zapise razgovora tijekom posebne operacije nadzora. postupak Konvencije podnositelju zahtjeva, a osobito je tvrdio da je bio zabranjen pristup na pravično suđenje (članak 6. § 1. Konvencije), budući da nisu imali pristup izvornim podacima, kao i neke od stavki nisu bili ni javio na terenu da nisu relevantni za njegov slučaj i utječu na privatnost trećih osoba.

 


PITANJA PRAVA

 


Što se tiče poštivanja članka 6. stavka 1. Konvencije (neobjavljivanje i korištenje dokaza dobivenih posebnim istražnim mjerama). Pritužbe podnositelja zahtjeva zbog postupovne nepravde odnose se na njegov ograničeni pristup tri glavne kategorije dokaza dobivenih korištenjem prešutnih mjera promatranja.

 

Prva kategorija obuhvatila je zapisnike o promatranju koje su dostavljene kao dokaz i upotrijebljene u osudi podnositelja zahtjeva. Sud je utvrdio da je podnositelj zahtjeva imao pristup transkripte zapisa po nalogu istražnog suca i prvostupanjskog suda i obučeni stručnjaci, neovisnost i nepristranost koja nikad nije bila u pitanje. Snimke su igrali na sudu, podnositelj zahtjeva imao priliku usporediti dešifriranje uz reprodukciju materijala, a njegovi prigovori su razlike između transkripata i zapisa su ispravno uzeti u obzir i dodatni pregledi su imenovani za rješavanje tih proturječnosti.

 

Podnositelj zahtjeva također je iskoristio prigodu za osporavanje dokaza, a sudovi tužene države dali su detaljne odgovore na svoje primjedbe. Podnositelj zahtjeva nikada nije osporavao da su snimljeni razgovori odigrali i nisu im poricili njihovu autentičnost. Polazeći od navedenog, Sud zaključuje da nema nepravde u vezi s dokumentima iz prve kategorije.

 

Druga kategorija odnosila se na evidenciju podnositelja zahtjeva i druge optuženike, koje nisu bile korištene za osudivanje podnositelja zahtjeva. S obzirom na ove kategorije, Sud je naglasio da je, bez obzira na pristup dovoljno detaljna izvješća o svojim razgovorima s trećim stranama, podnositelj zahtjeva nije mogao dati određeni argument u vezi mogućeg važnosti dokaza podataka u bilo kojoj fazi domaćeg postupka. Stoga, Sud ne može zaključiti da je navodni nemogućnost zahtjeva za pristup zapisima spadaju u ovu kategoriju, to je samo po sebi dovoljno da se uspostavi povredu njegovog prava na pravično suđenje. Ipak, u svojoj ocjeni opće pravičnosti postupka, mora uzeti u obzir ovo ograničenje prava podnositelja zahtjeva na obranu.

 

Treća kategorija dokaza sadržavala je evidencije koje se odnose na druge osobe koje nisu bile progonjene ili spomenute u osudama podnositelja zahtjeva. Podnositelj zahtjeva je odbijen pristup svim informacijama na temelju činjenice da on nije imao pravo na pristup zapisima kao što nije utjecalo na njegov posao i osobni život dotakne druge. Međutim, nije bilo postupak omogućava nadležni sud procijeniti na zahtjev podnositelja njihove relevantnosti za slučaj, pogotovo ako oni sadrže takve detaljne informacije koje će omogućiti podnositelju zahtjeva za opravdanje ili smanjiti kaznu, ili je imao značaj za dostupnosti, pouzdanosti i cjelovitosti na podnesene dokaze tijekom postupka , Zaključak Vrhovnog suda da je odvjetnik morao oduzeti dokaze za uporabu na suđenju za slučaj, ne slaže se sa sudskom praksom Europskog suda pravde, prema kojoj je postupak omogućava organe za sebe progona procijeniti relevantnost dokaza u nedostatku dodatnih proceduralnih zaštitnih mjera za zaštitu prava, ne ispunjavaju uvjete iz stavka 1. Članak 6. Konvencije.

 

Dakle, očito je da s obzirom na nedostatke raspravlja objavljivanje dokaznog postupka, podnositelj zahtjeva nije mogao formulirati određeni argument u pogledu usklađenosti podataka i razmatranje dokaza od strane nadležnog suda njegove žalbe u svjetlu njegovog prava na djelotvoran pripremu obrane. Dakle, to je spriječen upotrebom postupka kojim bi se moglo osnovati ako su u stanju dokazati da je tužiteljstvo posjedovao isključena iz slučaja, smanjiti kaznu ili dovesti u pitanje opseg njegovih navodnih kriminalnih aktivnosti.

 


ODLUKA

 


Povreda zahtjeva iz članka 6. Konvencije (jednoglasno) učinjena je.

 


NAKNADA

 

 

 

U primjeni članka 41. Konvencije. Sud je podnositelju zahtjeva dosudio 1.500 EUR na ime nematerijalne štete (četiri glasova za, sa tri protiv), odbijen je zahtjev za naknadu materijalne štete.

 

Sud je također jednoglasno utvrdio da uvjeti iz članka 8. Konvencije i članka 6. stavka 1. Konvencije nisu prekršeni u predmetu, s obzirom na navode podnositelja zahtjeva o poticanju.

 

 

 

Izvor publikacije: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/526-matanovi-protiv-hrvatske .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 04 April 2017 in Matanovic v. Croatia (application No. 2742/12).

 

In 2012, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Croatia.

 

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint about the lack of an effective judicial procedure to determine whether the evidence collected by the prosecution had to be communicated to the defense. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The case did not violate the requirements of Article 8 and Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant, a public official, was placed under special surveillance as part of an investigation into alleged corruption. Later, he and several other co-accused were convicted of various crimes and sentenced to 11 years in prison. Evidence against him included records of conversations during a special surveillance operation. In the conventional proceedings, the applicant alleged in particular that he was denied access to a fair trial (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention), since he did not have access to the original records, and also because some records were not communicated to him at all that they are not relevant to his case and affect the privacy of third parties.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention (non-disclosure and use of evidence obtained as a result of special investigative measures). The applicant's complaints about procedural injustice relate to his limited access to the three main categories of evidence obtained through the use of tacit observation measures.

 

The first category concerned observation records submitted as evidence and used in the conviction of the applicant. The Court noted that the applicant had access to the transcripts of the records ordered by the investigating judge and the trial court and prepared by an expert whose independence and impartiality had never been questioned. Records were reproduced in court, the applicant had the opportunity to compare the transcript with the material reproduced, and his objections to discrepancies between the transcripts and records were duly considered, and additional examinations were appointed to eliminate these contradictions.

 

The applicant also took the opportunity to challenge the evidence, and the courts of the respondent State gave detailed answers to his objections. The applicant never disputed that the recorded conversations took place, and did not deny their authenticity. Proceeding from the foregoing, the Court concludes that there is no injustice regarding records belonging to the first category.

 

The second category concerned the applicant's and other accused's records, which were not used to convict the applicant. Regarding this category, the Court notes that, despite access to sufficiently detailed reports of his conversations with third parties, the applicant was unable to provide a specific argument as to the possible relevance of the evidence at any stage of the domestic proceedings. Thus, the Court was unable to conclude that the alleged impossibility of the applicant's access to records belonging to this category was sufficient in itself to establish a violation of his right to a fair trial. Nevertheless, in his assessment of the general fairness of the proceedings, he must take into account this restriction of the applicant's right to defense.

 

The third category of evidence contained records relating to other persons who had not been prosecuted or mentioned in the applicant's conviction. The applicant was denied access to any information on the grounds that he did not have the right to access the records, since they did not affect his case and concerned the private lives of others. However, there was no procedure allowing the competent court to assess, at the request of the applicant, their relevance, specifically whether they contained such detailed information that could enable the applicant to justify or reduce the punishment, or were relevant to the admissibility, credibility and completeness of the evidence submitted during the proceedings . The Supreme Court's finding that the Attorney-General had to select evidence to be used in the proceedings was at variance with the Court's case-law, according to which the procedure allowing prosecutors themselves to assess the relevance of evidence in the absence of additional procedural guarantees of protection rights does not meet the requirements of paragraph 1 Article 6 of the Convention.

 

Consequently, it was evident that, given the shortcomings in the procedure for disclosing the evidence in question, the applicant could not formulate a specific argument regarding the consistency of these evidence and the consideration by the competent court of his appeal in the light of his right to effective defense training. Thus, he was prevented from using the procedure by which it could be determined whether the evidence possessed by the prosecutor's office, excluded from the case file, could reduce his punishment or question the scope of his alleged criminal activity.

 


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 EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (four votes in favor, with three against), the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage was rejected.

 

The Court also unanimously found that the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention were not violated in the case, as to the applicant's allegation of incitement.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/527-matanovic-v-croatia .

 

 

Presuda Europskog suda od 4. travnja 2017. godine u predmetu Lovrić protiv Hrvatske] "( zahtjeva br. 38458/15).

 

Tijekom 2015. godine, podnositelj zahtjeva je pomogao pri pripremi zahtjeve. Nakon toga, zahtjeva je priopćen Hrvatskoj.

 

U tom je slučaju uspješno razmatran prigovor na nemogućnost žalbe građanskim sudovima iznimno od udruživanja člana. U slučaju kršenja odredbi čl. 6. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda.

 

 

 

Okolnosti slučaja

 


Podnositelj zahtjeva bio je član lovačke udruge. Godine 2012. generalna je skupština odlučila istjerati ga iz ove udruge. Podnositelj zahtjeva podnio je tužbu, što je proglašeno nedopuštenom na temelju toga što predmet nije u nadležnosti sudova. U postupku pred Sudom podnositelj zahtjeva prigovorio je da se ne može žaliti na odluku na sudu.

 


Zakonna pitanja

 


Što se tiče poštivanja članka 6. stavka 1. Konvencije. (a) prihvatljivost. Stavak 1. članka 6. Konvencije propisuje svakome pravo da na sudu podnese bilo kakav zahtjev u svezi s njegovim građanskim pravima i obvezama. To se pravo odnosi samo na sporove oko građanskih prava i obveza koje se mogu smatrati priznatim u skladu s domaćim pravom, bez obzira na to jesu li ta prava zaštićena Konvencijom. Spor mora biti stvaran i ozbiljan, može se odnositi ne samo na stvarno postojanje zakona, već i na njezine granice i na način na koji se provodi te, konačno, ishod postupka treba biti odlučujući za ovo pravo.

 

Zakonodavstvo Hrvatske predviđa sudsku zaštitu prava članova udruge, koja proizlaze iz njezine povelje u kojoj su sastavljeni. Pravo članstva udruge bilo je građansko pravo, prateći pravo na slobodu udruživanja s drugima, a članak 6. stavak 1. Konvencije primijenjen je na postupak za protjerivanje iz udruge. Bilo je očigledno da je postupak koji se podnio podnositelj zahtjeva ukazivao na pravi i ozbiljan spor oko slobode udruživanja, posebice u odnosu na pravo podnositelja zahtjeva da ostane član udruge, a ishod ovog postupka bio je izravno odlučujući za ovo pravo i slobodu.

 


Rješenje

 


Žalba je proglašena dopustivom radi razmatranja o meritumu (donesena većinom glasova).

 

(b) Osnovanost. Ograničenje prava podnositelja zahtjeva na pristup sudu slijedilo je legitiman cilj poštivanja autonomije udruga. Organizacijska autonomija udruga činila je važan aspekt svoje slobode udruživanja, zaštićen člankom 11. Konvencije. Konkretno, udruge mogu imati određene disciplinske ovlasti, uključujući i isključivanje, bez straha od vanjskih miješanja. Međutim, sloboda udruživanja s drugima, a time i organizacijska autonomija udruga, nije bila apsolutna. Intervencija države u unutarnjim poslovima udruga nije mogla biti potpuno isključena. Dakle, udruga mora pridržavati određeni minimalni standard pri brisanju člana. U takvim slučajevima, ograničenja sudske kontrole mogu biti ograničena na poštivanje organizacijske autonomije udruga. Međutim, podnositelj zahtjeva, koji je osporio njegovo isključenje iz udruge, u potpunosti je lišen pristupa sudu.

 


vladajući

 


U slučaju da je došlo do povrede zahtjeva iz članka 6. Konvencije (usvojen sa šest glasova "za" jedan "-" protiv ").

 


kompenzacija

 

U primjeni članka 41. Konvencije. Zahtjev za naknadu štete nije postavljen. Najprikladniji oblik naknade bio bi nastavak postupka.

 

 

 

Izvor publikacije: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/528-lovri-protiv-hrvatske .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 04 April 2017 in the case of Lovric v. Croatia] "( application No. 38458/15).

 

In 2015, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Croatia.

 

In the case, the complaint on the impossibility to appeal to the civil courts in an exception from the association of its member was successfully considered. 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 was a member of the hunting association. In 2012, the general meeting decided to expel him from this association. The applicant brought suit, which was declared inadmissible on the grounds that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the courts. In the proceedings before the Court, the applicant complained that he could not appeal the decision in court.

 


Law issues

 


Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. (a) Acceptability. Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention provides for everyone the right to bring to court any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations. This right only extended to disputes over civil rights and obligations that may be deemed to be recognized in accordance with domestic law, regardless of whether such rights are protected by the Convention. The dispute must be real and serious, it can relate not only to the actual existence of the law, but also to its limits and the way it is implemented, and, finally, the outcome of the proceedings should be decisive for this right.

 

Legislation of Croatia provides for judicial protection of the rights of members of the association, arising from its charter, in which they are composed. The right to be a member of the association was a civil right, accompanying the right to freedom of association with others, and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was applied to proceedings for expulsion from the association. It was evident that the proceedings complained of by the applicant involved a real and serious dispute over freedom of association, in particular regarding the applicant's right to remain a member of the association, and the outcome of this proceedings was directly decisive for this right and freedom.

 


Decision

 


The complaint was declared admissible for consideration on the merits (rendered by a majority vote).

 

(b) Merits. The restriction of the applicant's right of access to the court pursued the legitimate aim of respecting the autonomy of associations. The organizational autonomy of associations constituted an important aspect of their freedom of association, protected by Article 11 of the Convention. In particular, associations could have some disciplinary powers up to and including exclusion, without fear of external interference. However, freedom of association with others and, consequently, organizational autonomy of associations were not absolute. Intervention of the state in the internal affairs of associations could not be completely ruled out. So, the association must adhere to a certain minimum standard when deleting a member. In such cases, the limits of judicial review could be limited to the observance of the organizational autonomy of associations. However, the applicant, who challenged his exclusion from the association, was completely deprived of access to the court.

 


Resolution

 


In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (adopted by six votes "for" at one - "against").

 


Compensation

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The claim for compensation for damage was not put forward. The most appropriate form of reparation would be the resumption of the proceedings.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/529-lovric-v-croatia .

 

 

Απόφαση του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων της 30ής Μαρτίου 2017 στην υπόθεση Chowdury και άλλοι κατά Ελλάδας (καταγγελία αριθ. 21884/15).

 

Το 2015, οι αιτούντες υποβοηθήθηκαν στην προετοιμασία της καταγγελίας. Στη συνέχεια, η καταγγελία κοινοποιήθηκε στην Ελλάδα.

 

Στην προκειμένη περίπτωση, η καταγγελία σχετικά με την ανεπαρκή αντίδραση στην εμπορία ανθρώπων μέσω της εκμετάλλευσης και την ευπάθεια των παράνομων μεταναστών εργασίας έχει αναθεωρηθεί με επιτυχία. Η υπόθεση αφορούσε παραβίαση των όρων του άρθρου 4 της Σύμβασης για την Προάσπιση των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου και των Θεμελιωδών Ελευθεριών.

 

 

 

Επί της περιπτώσεως

 


Οι αιτούντες είναι 42 πολίτες του Μπαγκλαντές. Ελλείψει αδειών εργασίας ή διαμονής στην Ελλάδα, απασχολούνταν από το 2012 ως 2013 ως εποχιακοί γεωργοί. Με την παρουσία των μισθών υποσχέσεις των 22 ευρώ την ημέρα, και όταν τοποθετούνται στις άθλιες συνθήκες που εργάζονταν για μεγάλο χρονικό διάστημα υπό την εποπτεία των ένοπλων φρουρών. Από τότε που ξέσπασαν απεργίες λίγους μήνες αργότερα, οι εργοδότες ανταποκρίθηκαν με απειλές και προσέλαβαν νέους μετανάστες από το Μπαγκλαντές.

 

17 Απρίλη του 2013 ένας από τους φρουρούς άνοιξε πυρ για περίπου εκατό εργαζόμενοι, οι οποίοι απαίτησαν την επιστροφή των καθυστερούμενων μισθών και τραυματίες ορισμένοι από τους αιτούντες. Προέκυψε διαδικασία κατά των εργοδοτών, του φρουρού που άνοιξε φωτιά και του επιτηρητή. Εκτός από τις κατηγορίες για πρόκληση σοβαρής σωματικής βλάβης για την υγεία του εισαγγελέα κατηγορούνται για εμπορία ανθρώπων (άρθρο 323Α του Ποινικού Κώδικα). Μία ομάδα αιτούντων (όλοι τραυματίστηκαν) αναγνωρίστηκε από το γραφείο του εισαγγελέα ως θύματα εμπορίας ανθρώπων και συμμετείχε στη δίκη.

 

Τον Ιούλιο του 2014, το Κακουργιοδικείο εφάρμοσε την ποινή της φυλάκισης σε σχέση με πρόκληση σοβαρής σωματικής βλάβης, αλλά απέρριψε την κατηγορία της εμπορίας ανθρώπων με το επιχείρημα ότι οι προσφεύγοντες είχαν υπογράψει τη συμφωνία εθελοντικά, χωρίς να χάσει την ελευθερία κινήσεων, που τους επιτρέπει να εγκαταλείπουν τον εργοδότη τους. Ο εισαγγελέας στο Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο αρνήθηκε να ασκήσει έφεση. Άλλες ομάδες αιτούντων (οι οποίες δεν τραυματίστηκαν) δεν τέθηκαν ενώπιον δικαστηρίου στο δικαστήριο. Τον Μάιο του 2013, κατέθεσαν επίσης καταγγελία ζητώντας την αναγνώρισή τους ως θύματα εμπορίας ανθρώπων. Τον Αύγουστο του 2014, η εισαγγελέας αρνήθηκε να ασκεί προσφυγή με την αιτιολογία ότι η καθυστέρηση εμφάνισης των προσφευγόντων θέτει υπό αμφισβήτηση την πραγματικότητα της παρουσίας τους κατά τη διάρκεια των εκδηλώσεων. Οι υποψήφιοι, οι οποίοι πίστευαν ότι είχαν υποβληθεί σε αναγκαστική ή υποχρεωτική δικαστηρίου, υποστήριξε ενώπιον του Δικαστηρίου ότι οι αρχές δεν ανταποκρίθηκαν στην κατάστασή τους.

 


ΖΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΝΟΜΟΥ

 


Όσον αφορά τη συμμόρφωση με το άρθρο 4, παράγραφος 2, της Σύμβασης. α) Εφαρμογή. Η έννοια της διακίνησης δεν περιορίζεται στη σεξουαλική εκμετάλλευση. Η εκμετάλλευση μέσω της εργασίας - είναι μια από τις μορφές εκμετάλλευσης, τα οποία προσδιορίζονται ορισμός της εμπορίας που προβλέπονται στο άρθρο 4 (α) Σύμβαση του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης για τη Δράση κατά της Εμπορίας Ανθρώπων (Σύμβαση κατά της εμπορίας ανθρώπων), η οποία αποκαλύπτει την εσωτερική σχέση μεταξύ της εξαναγκασμένης ή υποχρεωτικής εργασίας και της εμπορίας. Η ίδια ιδέα φαίνεται σαφώς στο άρθρο του Ποινικού Κώδικα, το οποίο ισχύει στην προκειμένη περίπτωση. Η προηγούμενη συναίνεση του θύματος δεν αρκεί για να εξασφαλίσει ότι η απασχόληση χαρακτηρίζεται ως «καταναγκαστική εργασία». Εάν ο εργοδότης έκανε κατάχρηση των εξουσιών του ή απολάμβανε την ευάλωτη θέση των εργαζομένων με σκοπό την εκμετάλλευση, οι τελευταίοι δεν προσέφεραν τη δουλειά τους εκουσίως. Το ζήτημα αν ένα πρόσωπο προτείνει την εργασία του εθελοντικά είναι πραγματικό και πρέπει να εξεταστεί υπό το πρίσμα όλων των σχετικών περιστάσεων της υπόθεσης.

 

Στην προκειμένη περίπτωση, οι υποψήφιοι άρχισαν να εργάζονται, να είναι σε ευάλωτη θέση και χωρίς χαρτιά μετανάστες χωρίς πόρους, και ήταν σε κίνδυνο να κρατούνται, κρατούνται ή απελαθούν. Οι αιτούντες, φυσικά, κατάλαβαν ότι αν εγκαταλείψουν τη δουλειά τους, δεν θα λάβουν ποτέ καθυστερούμενες αμοιβές, οι οποίες συσσωρεύονται καθημερινά.

 

Ακόμα και αν υποθέσουμε ότι οι υποψήφιοι για την απασχόληση που προσφέρουν την εργασία τους εθελοντικά και με καλή πίστη πίστευαν ότι θα καταβληθεί οι μισθοί, η συμπεριφορά των εργοδοτών τους (και η απειλή της βίας, κυρίως ως απάντηση στην μισθών) έδειξαν ότι η κατάσταση άλλαξε στη συνέχεια. Έτσι, αν και οι αιτούντες δεν ήταν στο δουλικό καθεστώς, τις συνθήκες εργασίας τους επιτρέπουν ρητά στο συμπέρασμα ότι η κατάστασή τους ανήλθε σε καταναγκαστική εργασία και την εμπορία ανθρώπων, όπως ορίζεται στο άρθρο 3 (α) του πρόσθετου πρωτοκόλλου της Σύμβασης των Ηνωμένων Εθνών κατά του Διεθνικού Οργανωμένου Εγκλήματος (Πρωτόκολλο του Παλέρμο) και Άρθρο 4 της Σύμβασης κατά της εμπορίας ανθρώπων.

 


ΛΥΣΗ

 


Το άρθρο 4 της σύμβασης εφαρμόζεται στην παρούσα υπόθεση (εγκρίθηκε ομόφωνα).

 

β) Συμμόρφωση με τις υποχρεώσεις. Οι λόγοι που αναφέρονται παρακάτω, έχουν αναγκάσει το Δικαστήριο να καταλήξει στο συμπέρασμα ότι η κυβέρνηση δεν είχε εκπληρώσει τις θετικές υποχρεώσεις της σε σχέση με την εμπορία ανθρώπων (παρεμπόδιση της διακίνησης, την προστασία των θυμάτων, τη διεξαγωγή αποτελεσματικής έρευνας και την τιμωρία των δραστών).

 

Το Δικαστήριο έχει χρησιμοποιήσει τη σύμβαση κατά της εμπορίας ανθρώπων και την ερμηνεία της Ομάδας Εμπειρογνωμόνων για τη Δράση κατά της Εμπορίας Ανθρώπων (GRETA).

 

(i) Καθιέρωση του αναγκαίου νομικού και κανονιστικού πλαισίου. Η υποχρέωση αυτή εκπληρώθηκε ουσιαστικά. Ειδικότερα, η Ελλάδα έχει επικυρώσει ή υπογραφεί πολύ πριν από τα γεγονότα που οδήγησαν στην παρούσα υπόθεση, τα κυριότερα διεθνή μέσα (συμπεριλαμβανομένου του Πρωτοκόλλου του Παλέρμο τον Δεκέμβριο του 2000 και η σύμβαση για την καταπολέμηση της εμπορίας ανθρώπων από τις 16 Μαΐου, 2005) και έχει εφαρμόσει τη σχετική νομοθεσία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο Ποινικό και Ποινικής Δικονομίας κωδικοποιεί την τιμωρία και την προστασία των θυμάτων.

 

ii) Επιχειρησιακά μέτρα. Η Σύμβαση κατά της Εμπορίας ενθαρρύνονται να λαμβάνουν προληπτικά (ενίσχυση του συντονισμού σε εθνικό επίπεδο μεταξύ των διαφόρων αρχών που είναι αρμόδιες για την καταπολέμηση της εμπορίας ανθρώπων και της μείωσης της ζήτησης, μεταξύ άλλων μέσω της διαχείρισης των συνόρων) και μέτρα (διευκόλυνση της αναγνώρισης των θυμάτων από το ειδικευμένο προσωπικό διαφύλαξη και να βοηθήσουν τα θύματα στη φυσική τους , ψυχολογική και κοινωνική αποκατάσταση).

 

Στην προκειμένη περίπτωση, η υποχρέωση αυτή δεν έχει τηρηθεί: αν και οι αρχές εδώ και καιρό συνειδητοποιήσει την τοπική κατάσταση (για την έκθεση του Συνηγόρου του Πολίτη επέστησε την προσοχή στην κατάσταση του 2008), η αντίδρασή τους ήταν ένα one-off, και η γενική λύση δεν έγινε δεκτή.

 

iii) Αποτελεσματικότητα της έρευνας και της δοκιμής. Για όλα τα θέματα που αφορούν τη λειτουργία των φορέων δίωξης και το δικαστήριο έπρεπε να γίνει επειγόντως, και με δική τους πρωτοβουλία το συντομότερο η κατάσταση περιήλθε σε γνώση τους, όλα τα λογικά συμπεράσματα από την εφαρμογή των σχετικών κειμένων του ποινικού δικαίου, στο βαθμό που επιτρέπεται από τις αντίστοιχες αρμοδιότητές τους. Εν προκειμένω, οι ακόλουθοι λόγοι οδήγησαν στο συμπέρασμα ότι οι υποχρεώσεις αυτές δεν πληρούνται.

 

(alpha) Όσον αφορά τους αιτούντες που δεν συμμετείχαν στη διαδικασία ενώπιον του δευτεροβάθμιου δικαστηρίου. Μόλις ο Εισαγγελέας έχει λάβει τεκμηριωμένες πληροφορίες ότι οι προσφεύγοντες είχαν προσληφθεί από τον ίδιο εργοδότη και εργάζονται κάτω από τις ίδιες συνθήκες όπως και η ομάδα των υποψηφίων που συμμετείχαν στη διαδικασία ενώπιον του Κακουργιοδικείου, είχε την υποχρέωση να ερευνήσει τους ισχυρισμούς της εμπορίας ανθρώπων και της καταναγκαστικής εργασίας. Ωστόσο, η απόφαση που απέρριψε την καταγγελία δεν έδωσε βάσιμες υπόνοιες ότι ο εισαγγελέας θεώρησε πραγματικά αυτή την πτυχή.

 

Τοποθέτηση σημασία στο γεγονός ότι αυτή η ομάδα των προσώπων που γίνονται δεκτά για την καθυστέρηση στην άσκηση της θέμα στην αστυνομία, ο εισαγγελέας απέτυχε να συμμορφωθεί με το άρθρο 13 της Σύμβασης κατά της εμπορίας προσώπων, που κυρίως έχει παράσχει «η περίοδος της αποκατάστασης και επανένταξης των» όχι λιγότερο από 30 ημέρες, έτσι ώστε ο ενδιαφερόμενος μπορεί να έχει να ξεφύγουν από την επιρροή των διακινητών και να λάβουν τεκμηριωμένη απόφαση σχετικά με τη συνεργασία με τις αρχές.

 

Έτσι, είναι σκόπιμο να απορρίψει την ένσταση ότι αυτή η ομάδα των αιτούντων δεν έχουν την ιδιότητα του «θύματος», και κατέληξε στο συμπέρασμα ότι δεν υπήρχε αποτελεσματική έρευνα.

 

(βήτα) Όσον αφορά τους αιτούντες που συμμετείχαν στη διαδικασία ενώπιον του δικαστηρίου. Τα άτομα κατηγορούνται για «διακίνηση» αθωώθηκαν στη βάση της στενής ερμηνείας, η οποία φαίνεται να συγχέουμε εμπορίας για δουλεία. Ωστόσο, ο περιορισμός της ελεύθερης κυκλοφορίας, η οποία επηρεάζει όχι τόσο το πρόσωπο εργασίας, όπως ορισμένες πτυχές της ζωής του θύματος δεν ήταν απαραίτητη προϋπόθεση για τον χαρακτηρισμό ως μια κατάσταση αναγκαστικής εργασίας ή την εμπορία. Ο εισαγγελέας του Ακυρωτικού Δικαστηρίου στη συνέχεια αρνήθηκε χωρίς να διευκρινίσει τους λόγους για την υποβολή καταγγελίας απαλλαγής.

 

Επιπλέον, παρά τις κατηγορίες για πρόκληση σοβαρής σωματικής βλάβης με την αρχική ποινή φυλάκισης μετατράπηκε σε οικονομικές κυρώσεις στο ποσό των 5 ευρώ για κάθε ημέρα της κράτησης.

 

Περίπτωση αντιστάθμισης. Το άρθρο 15 της Σύμβασης κατά της εμπορίας ανθρώπων απαιτούν κόμματα μέλη να συμπεριλάβουν στη νομοθεσία τους το δικαίωμα των θυμάτων σε αποζημίωση από τους δράστες του εγκλήματος, και να λάβει μέτρα για τη δημιουργία ενός ταμείου αποζημίωσης.

 

Ωστόσο, στην προκειμένη περίπτωση, ακόμη και με σοβαρούς τραυματισμούς αποζημιώσεως που έχουν συσταθεί από το κακουργιοδικείο, δεν υπερβαίνει τα 43 ευρώ ανά τραυματισμοί των εργαζομένων.

 


ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ

 


Η παραβίαση των απαιτήσεων του άρθρου 4 της Σύμβασης (ομόφωνα) έγινε δεκτή στην υπόθεση.

 


ΑΠΟΖΗΜΙΩΣΗ

 


Κατά την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 41 της Σύμβασης. Η δυσκολία της αξιολόγησης της υλικής ζημίας που υπέστη λόγω των απλήρωτων μισθών και την απόφαση του κακουργιοδικείο, οδήγησε στην απόφαση του Δικαστηρίου για την ανάθεση σε ισότιμη βάση το συνολικό ποσό που καλύπτει υλική και ηθική βλάβη και 16 000 ευρώ για καθέναν από τους αιτούντες, οι οποίοι συμμετείχαν στη διαδικασία ενώπιον του Κακουργιοδικείου, και 12.000 ευρώ σε όλους τους υπολοίπους αιτούντες για κάθε είδους ζημία που προκλήθηκε.

 

 

 

Πηγή δημοσίευσης: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/530-chowdury-and-others-vv-greece .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR judgment of 30 March 2017 in the case of Chowdury and Others v. Greece (application No. 21884/15).

 

In 2015, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Greece.

 

In the case, the complaint on the inadequate reaction to trafficking in human beings through exploitation and the vulnerability of illegal labor migrants has been successfully reviewed. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicants are 42 citizens of Bangladesh. In the absence of work or residence permits in Greece, they were employed in 2012 - 2013 as seasonal agricultural workers. With promises of wages of 22 euros a day and when placed in horrific conditions, they worked for a very long time under the supervision of armed overseers. Since strikes broke out a few months later, employers responded with threats and hired new migrants from Bangladesh.

 

On April 17, 2013, one of the guards opened fire on about a hundred workers who demanded repayment of arrears on wages, and wounded some of the applicants. A proceeding was brought against employers, the guard who opened fire, and the overseer. In addition to the charge of causing serious harm to health, the prosecutor charged with trafficking in human beings (article 323A of the Criminal Code). One group of applicants (who were all wounded) was recognized by the prosecutor's office as victims of trafficking and took part in the trial.

 

In July 2014, the Assize Court imposed sentences of imprisonment for serious bodily harm, but dismissed the prosecution of trafficking on the grounds that the applicants signed the agreements voluntarily, without losing their freedom of movement, which allowed them to leave the employer. The prosecutor at the Court of Cassation refused to file a cassation appeal. Other groups of applicants (who were not injured) were not brought to trial in the assizes court. In May 2013, they also filed a complaint demanding their recognition as victims of trafficking. In August 2014, the prosecutor refused to initiate proceedings on the grounds that the delay in the appearance of the applicants casts doubt on the reality of their presence during the events. The applicants, who believed that they had been subjected to compulsory or compulsory trial, claimed at the European Court that the authorities had evaded reacting to their situation.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention. (a) Applicability. The concept of trafficking is not limited to sexual exploitation. Exploitation through labor is one of the forms of exploitation identified by the definition of trafficking in human beings set out in article 4 (a) of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (the Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings), which reveals the internal link between forced or compulsory labor and human trafficking. The same idea is clearly seen in the article of the Criminal Code, which is applicable in the present case. The prior consent of the victim is not sufficient to ensure that employment is qualified as "forced labor". If the employer abused his powers or enjoyed the vulnerable position of workers for the purpose of exploitation, the latter did not offer their work voluntarily. The question of whether a person proposes his work voluntarily is factual and must be considered in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case.

 

In the present case, the applicants began to work, being in a vulnerable position as illegal migrants without any resources, and they were at risk of being detained, detained and deported. The applicants, of course, understood that if they quit their job, they would never receive wage arrears, which accumulated daily.

 

Even assuming that when applying for work, the applicants offered their work voluntarily and honestly believed that they would be paid wages, the behavior of their employers (threats and violence, especially in response to the demand for wages) demonstrated that the situation subsequently changed. Thus, although the applicants were not in bondage, their working conditions clearly allowed the conclusion that their situation was forced labor and human trafficking, as defined in article 3 (a) of the Additional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the Palermo Protocol) and Article 4 of the Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings.

 


DECISION

 


Article 4 of the Convention is applicable in the present case (unanimously adopted).

 

(b) Compliance with obligations. The grounds set out below compelled the Court to conclude that the respondent State had not fulfilled its positive obligations regarding trafficking in human beings (obstruction of trafficking, protection of victims, effective investigation and punishment of perpetrators).

 

The European Court has used the Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings and its interpretation by the Group of Experts on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA).

 

(i) Establish the necessary legal and regulatory framework. This obligation was substantially fulfilled. In particular, Greece ratified or signed long before the events that gave rise to the present case, the main international instruments (including the Palermo Protocol of December 2000 and the Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings of 16 May 2005) and implemented the relevant European Union law in the Criminal and Criminal Procedural codes on the punitive aspect and protection of victims.

 

(ii) Operational measures. The Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings recommended the adoption of preventive measures (strengthening coordination at the national level between the various bodies responsible for combating trafficking in persons and reducing demand, including through border controls) and protective measures (facilitating the identification of victims by qualified persons and assisting victims in their physical , psychological and social rehabilitation).

 

In the present case, this obligation was not fulfilled: although the authorities had long been aware of the local situation (the ombudsman's report drew attention to the situation back in 2008), their reaction was one-off, and the general decision was not taken.

 

(iii) Effectiveness of the investigation and trial. In the cases of exploitation, the prosecution authorities and the courts were to urgently and on their own initiative, as soon as the situation had been brought to their attention, all the logical conclusions from the application of the relevant criminal law texts to the extent permitted by their respective powers. In the present case, the following grounds led to the conclusion that these obligations were not fulfilled.

 

(alpha) As for the applicants who did not take part in the proceedings in the assizes court. As soon as the prosecutor received factual information that these applicants were hired by the same employers and worked under the same conditions as the group of applicants who participated in the proceedings in the Assize court, he had an obligation to investigate allegations of trafficking and forced labor. However, the decision that rejected the complaint did not give grounds for believing that the prosecutor really considered this aspect.

 

Attaching importance to the fact that the specified group of persons allowed a delay in bringing the matter to the attention of the police, the prosecutor did not comply with Article 13 of the Convention against Trafficking in Persons, which specifically provided for a "recovery and rehabilitation period" of not less than 30 days, so that the interested person could have time to escape from the influence of traffickers and take an informed decision about cooperation with the authorities.

 

Thus, it is advisable to reject the objection that this group of applicants did not have the status of a "victim", and conclude that there was no effective investigation.

 

(beta) As for the applicants who participated in the proceedings in the Assize court. Persons accused of "trafficking in persons" were acquitted on the basis of a narrow interpretation, which, apparently, confused trafficking in people with bonded status. However, the restriction of freedom of movement, which affected not so much the labor of a person as certain aspects of the victim's life, was not a necessary condition for qualifying the situation as forced labor or even trafficking in persons. The prosecutor at the Court of Cassation subsequently refused without specifying the reasons for filing a complaint of acquittal.

 

In addition, despite the accusations of causing serious bodily harm, the original sentences for imprisonment were mitigated to a financial penalty of 5 euros for each day of detention.

 

Compensation aspect. Article 15 of the Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings required States parties to provide in their legislation the right of victims to receive compensation from the perpetrators of the crime and take steps to establish a compensation fund.

 

However, in the present case, even taking into account the serious bodily harm, the compensation established by the Assize Court did not exceed 43 euros per employee with injuries.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 4 of the Convention (unanimously) was admitted in the case.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The difficulty in assessing property damage incurred as a result of unpaid wages and the decision of the Assize Court determined the decision of the European Court of Justice to award on an equitable basis a total amount of material damage and moral damage of 16,000 euros to each of the applicants who participated in the proceedings in the Assize court, and EUR 12,000 to each of the remaining applicants in respect of all types of damage caused.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/531-chowdury-and-others-v-greece .