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

Новости от 01 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 01.08.2018 14:06

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 13 февраля 2018 года по делу "Иващенко (Ivashchenko) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 61064/10).

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя, являвшегося фотокорреспондентом, на то, что изъятие его ноутбука и копирование всей находящейся на нем информации по подозрению в наличии на нем запрещенной информации сотрудниками аэропорта города Адлера на таможенном пропускном пункте, когда он возвращался из Абхазии, нарушали его права. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 8 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, являвшийся фотокорреспондентом, жаловался то, что изъятие его ноутбука и копирование всей находящейся на нем информации по подозрению в наличии на нем запрещенной информации сотрудниками аэропорта города Адлера на таможенном пропускном пункте, когда он возвращался из Абхазии, нарушали его права.

13 февраля 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование статьи 8 Конвенции (право на уважение частной и семейной жизни), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 3 000 евро в качестве справедливой компенсации.

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/548-ivashchenko-protiv-rossii .

 

help@espchhelp.ru ">

The ECHR judgment of 13 February 2018 in the case of Ivashchenko v. Russia (application No. 61064/10).

In the case, the complaint of the applicant, who was a photojournalist, was successfully reviewed, that the withdrawal of his laptop and copying of all the information on him on suspicion of having prohibited information on him from the airport of Adler airport at the customs checkpoint when he returned from Abkhazia violated his rights . In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 8 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, who was a photojournalist, complained that removing his laptop and copying all the information on it on suspicion of having banned information on him from the airport of Adler airport at the customs checkpoint when he returned from Abkhazia violated his rights.

On 13 February 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for private and family life) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 3,000 euros as just satisfaction.


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/549-ivashchenko-v-russia .

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 13 февраля 2018 года по делу "Буткевич (Butkevich) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 5865/07).

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя на несправедливое разбирательство, так как отсутствовала сторона обвинения. По делу допущено нарушение пункта 1 статьи 5, пункта 1 статьи 6, статьи 10 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, являющийся гражданином Украины и работающий журналистом, жаловался на то, что его задержание на марше антиглобалистов в 2006 года в городе Санкт-Петербурге, когда он осуществлял обзор указанного мероприятия и делал фотографии, не принимая непосредственного участия в данном мероприятии, и последующий административный арест, нарушали его права. Заявитель также жаловался на то, что разбирательство не было справедливым, так как отсутствовала сторона обвинения и он не мог допросить сотрудников правоохранительных органов в суде.

13 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), пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции (право на справедливое судебное разбирательство), статьи 10 Конвенции (свобода выражения мнения), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 7 000 евро в качестве справедливой компенсации.

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/550-butkevich-protiv-rossii .

 

help@espchhelp.ru ">

The ECHR judgment of 13 February 2018 in the case of Butkevich (v. Butkevich v. Russia) (application no. 5865/07).

The applicant's application for an unfair trial was successfully considered in the case, since there was no prosecution. There has been a violation of Article 5 § 1, Article 6 § 1, Article 10 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, who is a citizen of Ukraine and working as a journalist, complained that his detention on the anti-globalization march in 2006 in St. Petersburg when he reviewed the event and took photographs without taking direct part in the event, and subsequent administrative arrest, violated his rights. The applicant also complained that the proceedings were not fair, since there was no prosecution and he could not question the law enforcement officers in court.

On 13 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 the person), Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), articles 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression), and obliged the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7,000 as just satisfaction.


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/551-butkevich-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 13 февраля 2018 года по делу "Мсхиладзе (Mskhiladze) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 47741/16).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя на то, что содержание его под стражей в ожидании выдворения в Грузию являлось произвольным и незаконным после того, как властям государства-ответчика стало известно, что он являлся лицом без гражданства и не мог въехать на территорию какого-либо иного государства. По делу допущено нарушение требований пунктов 1 и 4 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2016 году заявителю была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.

 

В своей жалобе заявитель жаловался на то, что содержание его под стражей в ожидании выдворения в Грузию являлось произвольным и незаконным после того, как властям государства-ответчика стало известно, что он являлся лицом без гражданства и не мог въехать на территорию какого-либо иного государства. Заявитель также жаловался на ненадлежащие условия содержания в центре содержания иностранных граждан и на то, что его жалоба о помещении в указанный центр не была рассмотрена безотлагательно.

 

13 февраля 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пунктов 1 и 4 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность), но не нарушили требование статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток).

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/552-mskhiladze-protiv-rossii .

 

 

help@espchhelp.ru ">

The ECHR judgment of 13 February 2018 in the case of Mskhiladze v. The Russian Federation (application no. 47741/16).
The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint that his detention pending deportation to Georgia was arbitrary and unlawful after the authorities of the respondent State became aware that he was stateless and could not enter the territory of any other country state. The case was violated the requirements of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2016, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant complained that his detention pending deportation to Georgia was arbitrary and illegal after the Government of the respondent State became aware that he was stateless and could not enter the territory of any other State . The applicant also complained about improper conditions at the detention center for foreign citizens and that his complaint about being placed in the said center was not immediately examined.

 

On 13 February 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person), but did not violate the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/553-mskhiladze-v-russia .

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 13 февраля 2018 года по делу "Андрей Смирнов (Andrey Smirnov) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 43149/10).

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя, являвшегося несовершеннолетним, к которому была применена мера пресечения в виде заключения под стражу в связи с подозрением в нанесении телесных повреждений ученику из его школы, на то, что внутригосударственные суды не предоставили соответствующих и достаточных оснований для применения указанной меры пресечения. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции, статьи 8 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, являвшийся несовершеннолетним, к которому была применена мера пресечения в виде заключения под стражу в связи с подозрением в нанесении телесных повреждений ученику из его школы, жаловался на то, что внутригосударственные суды не предоставили соответствующих и достаточных оснований для применения указанной меры пресечения. Заявитель также жаловался на вынесенный российскими судами отказ во встрече с родителями, на ограничения частоты таких визитов и на изоляцию от родителей стеклянной перегородки во время их визитов.

13 февраля 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требования пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность), статьи 8 Конвенции (право на уважение частной и семейной жизни), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 7 500 евро в качестве справедливой компенсации.

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/554-andrey-smirnov-protiv-rossii .

 

help@espchhelp.ru ">

The ECHR judgment of 13 February 2018 in the case of Andrey Smirnov v. Russian Federation (application no. 43149/10).

The case successfully examined the complaint of the applicant, who was a minor, who was subjected to a preventive measure in the form of detention because of suspicion of inflicting bodily injuries to a pupil from his school, to the fact that the domestic courts did not provide adequate and sufficient grounds for the application of this measure restraint. There has been a violation of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, Article 8 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, who was a minor who was subjected to a preventive measure in the form of detention due to suspected bodily harm to a student from his school, complained that the domestic courts did not provide adequate and sufficient grounds for applying this preventive measure . The applicant also complained about the refusal of the Russian courts to meet with their parents, the restrictions on the frequency of such visits and the isolation from the parents of the glass partition during their visits.

On 13 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 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person), Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life), and obliged the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7,500 as just satisfaction.


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/555-andrey-smirnov-v-russia .

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 13 февраля 2018 года по делу "Тютина и другие (Tyutina and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 3380/10 и 33725/10).

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод и статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции.

В 2010 году заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

В своих жалобах заявители (135 человек) жаловались на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации. Указанными решениями заявителям присуждались различные денежные суммы, которые им должно было выплатить муниципальное предприятие муниципального образования "Котлас" "Пассажирское автотранспортное предприятие".

13 февраля 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителями Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требование пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции (право на справедливое судебное разбирательство), статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции (защита собственности), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям различные суммы.

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/556-tyutina-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

help@espchhelp.ru ">

The ECHR judgment of 13 February 2018 in the case of Tyutina and Others v. Russia (applications No. 3380/10 and 33725/10).

In the case, the applicants successfully complained of the non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation. There has been a violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

In 2010, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

In their complaints, the applicants (135 people) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation. The above decisions awarded the applicants various sums of money, which they were to be paid by the municipal enterprise of the Kotlas municipal entity Passenger Motor Transport Enterprise.

On 13 February 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and obliged the State - the respondent to pay the applicants various amounts.


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/557-tyutina-and-others-v-russia .

 

TEDH acórdão de 28 de março de 2017 no processo Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal (queixa n.º 78103/14).

Em 2015, o candidato foi auxiliado na preparação da denúncia. Posteriormente, a queixa foi comunicada a Portugal.

O requerente reclamou com sucesso do suicídio de uma pessoa com doença mental voluntariamente hospitalizada em um hospital psiquiátrico estadual após uma tentativa de suicídio. O caso envolveu uma violação dos requisitos do Artigo 2 da Convenção para a Proteção dos Direitos Humanos e Liberdades Fundamentais.

 

CIRCUNSTÂNCIAS DO CASO


O filho do candidato foi voluntariamente hospitalizado em um hospital psiquiátrico estadual para tratamento após uma tentativa de suicídio no início de abril de 2000. Em 27 de abril de 2000, ele fugiu do hospital e pulou sob o trem. O filho do requerente já havia sido hospitalizado várias vezes no mesmo hospital em conexão com sua doença mental, que foi agravada pelo vício em álcool e drogas. Segundo seus registros médicos, o hospital foi informado de suas tentativas anteriores de suicídio.


QUESTÕES DE DIREITO


Concernente ao cumprimento do artigo 2 da Convenção (lei substantiva). Dada a história médica do filho do requerente e, em particular, o fato de que ele tentou cometer suicídio três semanas antes, a equipe do hospital tinha motivos para acreditar que ele poderia tentar cometer suicídio novamente. Além disso, como já havia fugido do hospital, outra tentativa de fuga com a possibilidade, à luz de seu diagnóstico de desfecho fatal, deveria ser prevista.

O Tribunal registou a evolução da tendência de proporcionar às pessoas com perturbações mentais um tratamento de portas abertas. No entanto, este tipo de tratamento não pode libertar o estado das suas obrigações de proteger os doentes mentais das ameaças que eles podem criar para si próprios. Assim, era necessário estabelecer um equilíbrio eqüitativo entre as obrigações do Estado, de acordo com o artigo 2 da Convenção, e a necessidade de prestar atenção aberta, levando em consideração as necessidades individuais de monitoramento especial dos pacientes suicidas. Quando o equilíbrio é estabelecido não deve ter em conta as diferenças entre involuntária voluntária e: pessoa como hospitalizada voluntariamente está sob os cuidados e supervisão do hospital, as obrigações do Estado tinha que ser o mesmo, porque as pessoas de outra forma hospitalizados voluntariamente ser privado da protecção do artigo 2 da Convenção.

A equipe do hospital verificou se os pacientes estavam presentes ao tomar alimentos e remédios. Além disso, havia uma ordem de acordo com a qual, quando um paciente era considerado ausente, uma busca era organizada para ele no hospital e a polícia e a família eram informadas. No presente caso, o filho do solicitante foi visto pela última vez pouco depois das 16h, mas sua ausência não foi notada até as 19h, pois ele não compareceu ao jantar. Por esta altura ele já estava morto. Assim, o procedimento de emergência mostrou-se ineficaz para impedir sua fuga e, portanto, o suicídio. A ameaça foi exacerbada pelo acesso aberto e irrestrito do hospital à plataforma ferroviária. Tendo em vista a obrigação positiva de tomar medidas preventivas para proteger um indivíduo cuja vida estava em risco, e em relação a um doente mental que recentemente tentou o suicídio, e estava inclinado para escapar do pessoal do hospital poderia ter sido esperado para tomar medidas mais eficazes para garantir que ele não sairá do quarto.


DECISÃO


A violação dos requisitos do Artigo 2 da Convenção (unanimemente) foi cometida no caso.

O Tribunal também constatou, por unanimidade, que houve uma violação do aspecto processual do artigo 2 da Convenção, uma vez que o processo durou mais de 11 anos em dois níveis de jurisdição. mecanismos jurídicos internos geralmente não são fornecidos na prática, eficaz e uma resposta rápida por parte das autoridades, de acordo com as obrigações processuais do Estado.


COMPENSAÇÃO


Na aplicação do artigo 41 da Convenção. O Tribunal atribuiu ao recorrente 703 80 cêntimos por danos morais e 25 000 euros a danos morais.

 

Fonte de publicação: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/542-fernandes-de-oliveira-vv-portugal .

 

 

ECHR judgment of 28 March 2017 in the case of Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal (application No. 78103/14).

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

The applicant successfully complained of the suicide of a mentally ill person voluntarily hospitalized in a state mental hospital after an attempted suicide. 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


The applicant's son was voluntarily hospitalized in a state psychiatric hospital for treatment after an attempted suicide in early April 2000. On April 27, 2000, he fled the hospital and jumped under the train. The applicant's son had already been hospitalized several times in the same hospital in connection with his mental illness, which was aggravated by alcohol and drug addiction. According to his medical records, the hospital was informed of his previous attempts at suicide.


ISSUES OF LAW


Concerning compliance with Article 2 of the Convention (substantive law). Given the medical history of the applicant's son and, in particular, the fact that he tried to commit suicide three weeks before, the hospital staff had reason to believe that he might try to commit suicide again. In addition, since he had previously fled the hospital, another attempt at flight with the possibility in the light of his diagnosis of a fatal outcome was to be foreseen.

The Court took note of the evolving trend of providing people with mental disorders with open-door treatment. However, this type of treatment could not free the state from its obligations to protect the mentally ill patients from the threats that they can create for themselves. Thus, it was necessary to establish an equitable balance between the obligations of the state in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention and the need to provide open door care, taking into account individual needs for special monitoring of suicidal patients. In establishing equilibrium, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary hospitalization should not be taken into account: since the hospitalized person was voluntarily under the care and supervision of the hospital, the state's obligations were to be the same as otherwise voluntarily hospitalized persons would be deprived of the protection of Article 2 of the Convention.

The hospital staff checked whether the patients were present when taking food and medicine. In addition, there was an order according to which, when a patient was found to be absent, a search was organized for him in the hospital and the police and the family were informed. In the present case, the applicant's son was last seen shortly after 4 pm, but his absence was not noticed until 7 pm, as he did not appear for dinner. By this time he was already dead. Thus, the emergency procedure proved ineffective to prevent his escape and, therefore, suicide. The threat was exacerbated by open and unrestricted access from the hospital to the railway platform. In view of the positive obligation to take preventive measures to protect a person whose life was at risk and to a mentally ill patient who recently attempted suicide and was prone to escape, more effective measures could be expected from the hospital staff to ensure that he will not leave the room.


DECISION


The violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.

The Court also found unanimously that there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, since the proceedings had continued for more than 11 years at two levels of jurisdiction. The domestic legal mechanisms as a whole did not provide in practice an effective and prompt reaction on the part of the authorities, consistent with the procedural obligations of the state.


COMPENSATION


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 703 80 cents in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/543-fernandes-de-oliveira-v-portugal .

 

 

Presuda Europskog suda od 28. ožujka 2017. godine u predmetu Marunic protiv Hrvatske (zahtjeva br. 51706/11).

 

Tijekom 2011. godine podnositelj zahtjeva je pomagao u pripremi zahtjeve. Nakon toga, zahtjeva je priopćen Hrvatskoj.

 

U konkretnom slučaju, prigovor podnositelja zahtjeva zbog povrede prava na slobodu izražavanja je uspješno razmotren. Slučaj je uključivao kršenje zahtjeva članka 10. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda.

 

 

 

OKOLNOSTI PREDMETA

 


Podnositelj zahtjeva bio je direktor komunalnog poduzeća. Ona je otpušten s dužnosti kao disciplinski postupak nakon što je razgovarao s medijima u svojoj obrani tjedan dana nakon javne kritike njenog rada predsjednik tvrtke u članku u novinama. Odluka da se odbaci je snimljena na temelju toga što je napravio navode u tisku (o ilegalnom prikupljanju parkiranja iz zemlje koja ne pripada općini), koja smanjena ugled tvrtke. Argumenti podnositelja zahtjeva u odnosu na neopravdani otkaz je odbijen od strane Vrhovnog suda na temelju koje je dala tvrtka u krajnje negativnom svjetlu, pa je morao donijeti svoje komentare o tvrtki nadležnim tijelima, a ne da ih prijaviti putem medija.

 

U konvencionalnom postupku podnositeljica zahtjeva prigovorila je povredu njezinog prava na slobodu izražavanja.

 


PITANJA PRAVA

 


Što se tiče poštivanja članka 10. Konvencije. Odbacivanje podnositelja zahtjeva u svezi s njezinim tvrdnjama u tisku predstavljalo je miješanje u njeno pravo na slobodu izražavanja. Intervencija je osigurana zakonom i slijedila legitimni cilj zaštite ugleda ili prava drugih. S obzirom na pitanje da li je bilo nužno u demokratskom društvu, dok je obveza vjernosti, rezerve i diskrecije, kao u pravilu, spriječiti radnike da obavljaju javnu kritiku aktivnosti svojih poslodavaca, ključnu ulogu u predmetu podnositelja zahtjeva bila je činjenica da je još jedan službeni tvrtka se prvo pribjegla upotrebi medija i javno kritizirala rad podnositelja zahtjeva. Pod tim specifičnim okolnostima, od podnositelja molbe nije se moglo očekivati ​​da šuti, a ne da brani njezinu reputaciju na isti način. Zahtjev za nekim drugim bi bio predugačak predanost lojalnosti. Prema tome, broj kriterija koji se obično koristi u slučajevima koji se odnose na slobodu izražavanja na radnom mjestu (vidi, npr presudu Velikog vijeća u slučaju euro „Gudzha protiv Republike Moldavije” (Guja v. Moldova) 12. veljače 2008. godine, pritužbe N 14277/04, „Bilten sudske prakse Europskog suda za ljudska prava” N 105, presude Europskog suda u predmetu „Wojtas Caleta protiv Poljske” (Wojtas-Kaleta v. Poland) 16. srpnja 2009. godine, žalba N 20.436 / 02, "Činjenica o sudskoj praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava m čovjek „N 121, a presuda Europskog suda pravde” Heynish protiv Njemačke „(Heinisch v. Njemačka), 21. srpnja 2011. godine, prigovor N 28274/08,” Bilten sudske prakse Europskog suda za ljudska prava „N 143 ), nisu bili primjenjivi ili su ograničene vrijednosti u slučaju podnositelja zahtjeva. Konkretno, argumenti tužene Vlade da je podnositelj posjedovali druge učinkovite, ali više tajnovite sredstva zaštite ugleda, a motivirani isključivo željom da zaštiti svoj imidž u očima javnosti, a ne informirati javnost o pitanjima od javnog interesa, tako da ne liječiti do točke.

 

Zapravo, izjave podnositelja zahtjeva kao odgovor na izjave predsjedatelja nisu bile nerazmjerne i nisu bile daleko od dopuštenih kritika. S tim u vezi, Sud je utvrdio da je (i) aktivnosti općinskog javnog komunalnog poduzeća je bila predmet općeg interesa za lokalnu zajednicu, (ii) izjavu podnositelja zahtjeva da je tvrtka nezakonito prikupljeni novac za parkiranje, ne treba shvatiti kao izjavu o tome, ali kao vrijednosni sud, koji je imao dovoljnu činjeničnu osnovu, kao što se može s pravom reći da je naplata naknada za parking na zemljištu od druge osobe bila nezakonita, (iii) ima izravan iskaz og vrijednost u svrhu zaštite svog profesionalnog ugleda protiv neosnovana, po njenom mišljenju, kritiku i (iv) njen poziv za reviziju i istragu preuzela istražnim tijelima, tvrtka je bio uključen u kriminalne radnje, ali je namijenjen za uklanjanje neizvjesnost glede načina na koji se upravljao tvrtkom. U takvim okolnostima, uplitanje u slobodu izražavanja podnositelja zahtjeva u obliku sažetka otkaza nije bilo nužno u demokratskom društvu radi zaštite ugleda i prava tvrtke.

 


ODLUKA

 


U slučaju da je došlo do povrede zahtjeva iz članka 10. Konvencije (jednoglasno usvojen).

 


NAKNADA

 


U primjeni članka 41. Konvencije. Sud je podnositelju zahtjeva nagrađivao 1.500 EUR na ime nematerijalne štete. Naknada za materijalnu štetu nje dodijeljena, budući da je zakonodavstvo zemlje omogućilo nastavak postupka u vezi s utvrđivanjem povrede.

 

 

 

Izvor publikacije: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/544-marunic-protiv-hrvatske .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 28 March 2017 in the case of Marunic v. Croatia (application No. 51706/11).

 

In 2011, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Croatia.

 

The applicant's complaint on the violation of the right to freedom of expression was successfully considered in the case. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant was the director of a municipal utility company. She was dismissed from her post in a disciplinary manner after she appeared in the media in her defense a week after publicly criticizing her work by the company chairman in an article in the press. The decision to dismiss was made on the grounds that it made statements in the press (concerning illegal collection of parking fees from land not belonging to the municipality), which detracted from the reputation of the company. The applicant's arguments regarding unlawful dismissal were rejected by the Supreme Court on the grounds that she presented the company in a very negative light and had to bring her comments about the company's activities to the attention of the competent authorities, and not to report them through the media.

 

In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained of a violation of her right to freedom of expression.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 10 of the Convention. The dismissal of the applicant in connection with her statements in the press constituted an interference with her right to freedom of expression. The intervention was provided by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. With regard to the question of whether it was necessary in a democratic society, while the obligation of loyalty, restraint and prudence tended to prevent workers from publicly criticizing the activities of their employers, the key importance in the applicant's case was that another official the company first resorted to the use of the media and publicly criticized the work of the applicant. Under these specific circumstances, the applicant could not be expected to remain silent and not defend her reputation in the same way. To require another would be to extend too far its commitment to loyalty. Accordingly, several criteria that are commonly applied in cases concerning freedom of expression in the workplace (see, for example, the Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court in Guja v. Moldova, dated February 12, 2008, the complaint N 14277/04, "Information Bulletin on the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights" No. 105, Wojtas-Kaleta v. Poland, judgment of 16 July 2009, application no. 20436 / 02, "Fact sheet on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (No. 121), and Heinisch v. Germany, judgment of 21 July 2011, application no. 28274/08, "European Court of Human Rights case bulletin" No. 143 ), were either inapplicable or of limited value in the applicant's case. In particular, the arguments of the Government of the respondent State that the applicant had other effective but more secretive means of protecting her reputation, and she was motivated only by the desire to protect her image in the public eye, and not to inform the public about issues of general interest, to the point.

 

In fact, the applicant's statements in response to the Chairman's statements were not disproportionate and did not go beyond admissible criticism. In this regard, the Court notes that (i) the activities of the municipal public utility company were of general interest to the local community, (ii) the statement by the applicant that the company illegally collected funds for parking should not be regarded as a statement of fact, but as an appraisal judgment that had a sufficient factual basis, since it could reasonably be argued that the collection of parking fees on the land of another person was illegal, (iii) her statement was directly and (iv) her call for an audit and investigation by the investigative authorities did not imply that the company was involved in criminal activities, but was intended to eliminate the uncertainty about the way in which she managed the company. In such circumstances, interference with the applicant's freedom of expression in the form of dismissal in a disciplinary manner was not necessary in a democratic society to protect the reputation and rights of the company.

 


DECISION

 


In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (unanimously adopted).

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Compensation for pecuniary damage was not awarded, as the country's legislation allowed the resumption of proceedings in connection with the establishment of a violation.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/545-marunic-v-croatia .

 

 

Presuda Europskog suda od 28. ožujka 2017. godine u predmetu "Skorjanec (Skorjanec) protiv Hrvatske" (zahtjeva br. 25536/14).

 

Tijekom 2014. podnositelj zahtjeva je pomagao u pripremi zahtjeve. Nakon toga, zahtjeva je priopćen Hrvatskoj.

 

U slučaju, prigovor je uspješno razmotren radi izbjegavanja istrage rasno motiviranog nasilja protiv žrtve po udruživanju. Došlo je do povrede članka 3. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda.

 

 

 

OKOLNOSTI PREDMETA

 


Na zahtjeva i njezin partner, koji je bio Ciganin, bio napadnut od strane dvoje ljudi koji su izrazili protiv romske uvrede prije napada i tijekom njega. Podnositelj zahtjeva bio je svjedok u kaznenom predmetu, a ne žrtva, kao njezin partner. Konvencije postupak podnositelj zahtjeva žalio se na izbjegavanje domaće vlasti na uspješno obavljanje svoje pozitivne obveze u odnosu na rasno motiviranog čin nasilja protiv nje suprotno člancima 3. i 14. Konvencije.

 


PITANJA PRAVA

 


Sukladnost s člankom 3. Konvencije (proceduralni aspekt) u svezi s člankom 14. Konvencije. Dužnost vlasti da uspostavi moguću vezu između rasističkih stavova i ovaj čin nasilja, dio je obveza kojima podliježe po državama, u skladu s člankom 3. Konvencije u vezi s člankom 14. Konvencije, pod utjecajem ne samo nasilje na temelju stvarnog ili zamišljenog osobnom statusu žrtve ili karakteristike, ali i djela nasilja na temelju stvarne ili percipirane povezanosti ili veze žrtve s drugom osobom koja je stvarno ili pretpostavljiva ali ima specifičan status ili zaštićenu osobinu. U takvim slučajevima, nadležna tijela moraju učiniti ono što je razumno u danim okolnostima za prikupljanje i očuvanje dokaza, istražiti sve praktične načine utvrđivanja istine i napraviti potpuno obrazložena, nepristrane i objektivne odluke bez izostavljanja sumnjivih činjenica koje mogu biti indikativne za rasno motiviranog nasilja.

 

Članak 3. Konvencije zahtijeva provedbu odgovarajućih kaznenopravnih mehanizama ako je težina nasilja uzrokovana privatnim osobama osigurala zaštitu prema ovoj odredbi. Ta se načela sve više primjenjuju u slučajevima nasilja motiviranog rasnim diskriminacijom. Sud je odlučio da pravni sustav Republike Hrvatske osigurava odgovarajuće zakonske mehanizme kako bi osigurao prihvatljivu razinu zaštite podnositelju zahtjeva pod tim okolnostima. Međutim, u ovom slučaju, tijela progona usredotočili istragu i analizu samo na elementima zločina iz mržnje povezane s nasilnom napadu na partnera podnositelja zahtjeva. Nisu obaviti temeljitu procjenu relevantnih situacijskih čimbenika te odnos između odnosa podnositelja zahtjeva sa svojim partnerom i rasističkih motiva za napad na njih. U svojoj pritužbi podnositeljica zahtjeva podigla je određene navode o rasno motiviranom nasilju usmjerenom protiv nje. Vlasti tužiteljstvo je inzistirao na tome da ona sama nije bila Ciganka, i njihova nesposobnost da se uspostavi percipiraju ako ga napada oba Ciganka i ne razmatranje odnosa između rasistički motiv za napad, i stav podnositelja zahtjeva sa svojim partnerom rezultiralo neadekvatne procjene slučaju domaće vlasti , To detracted iz adekvatnosti proceduralne odgovor vlasti tužene države o navodima podnositelja zahtjeva rasno motiviranog čina nasilja protiv nje do stupnja nespojiva s obvezom države da poduzme sve razumne korake kako bi identificirati rasističke motive u incident.

 


ODLUKA

 


U slučaju povrede članka 3. Konvencije (jednoglasno).

 


NAKNADA

 


U primjeni članka 41. Konvencije. Sud je podnositeljici zahtjeva dodijelio 12.500 EUR na ime nematerijalne štete.

 

 

 

Izvor publikacije: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/546-skorjanec-protiv-hrvatske .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR judgment of 28 March 2017 in the case of "Skorjanec (Skorjanec) v. Croatia" (application No. 25536/14).

 

In 2014, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Croatia.

 

In the case, a complaint was successfully considered for evading the investigation of a racially motivated act of violence against a victim by association. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant and her partner, who was a gypsy, were attacked by two people who expressed anti-Romani insults before and during the attack. The applicant was a witness in a criminal case, not a victim, as her partner. In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained about the failure of the domestic authorities to effectively fulfill her positive obligations with respect to the racially motivated act of violence against her, in violation of articles 3 and 14 of the Convention.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Compliance with Article 3 of the Convention (procedural aspect) in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. The authorities' obligation to establish a possible link between racist views and this act of violence, which was part of the obligation imposed on States in accordance with article 3 of the Convention in conjunction with article 14 of the Convention, concerned not only acts of violence based on the actual or imaginary personal status of the victim or characteristics, but also acts of violence based on the actual or perceived association or connection of the victim with another person who is really or presumptive but has a specific status or protected characteristic. In such cases, the authorities had to do what was reasonable under the circumstances to collect and preserve the evidence, investigate all the practical means of establishing the truth and render fully motivated, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that might indicate racially motivated violence.

 


rticle 3 of the Convention required the implementation of adequate criminal law mechanisms if the severity of the violence caused by private persons provided protection under this provision. These principles are all the more applicable in cases of violence motivated by racial discrimination. The Court decided that Croatia's legal system provided adequate legal mechanisms to provide an acceptable level of protection to the applicant under the circumstances. However, in the present case, the prosecution authorities focused their investigation and analysis only on the element of the hate crime related to the violent assault on the applicant's partner. They did not perform a thorough assessment of the relevant situational factors and the relationship between the applicant's relationship with her partner and the racist motive for attacking them. In her complaint, the applicant raised specific allegations of racially motivated violence directed against her. The prosecution authorities insisted on the fact that she herself was not a gypsy and their inability to establish whether she was perceived by the attackers as a gypsy and the failure to take into account the links between the racist motive for the attack and the attitude of the applicant to her partner led to a lack of assessment of the circumstances of the case by the domestic authorities . This belittled the adequacy of the procedural response of the respondent Government to the applicant's allegations of a racially motivated act of violence against her to the extent of incompatibility with the State's obligation to take all reasonable steps to identify racist motives in the incident.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 12,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/547-skorjanec-v-croatia .