Новости от 03 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 03.08.2018 09:28

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 февраля 2018 года по делу "Юшин и другие (Yushin and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 2403/06, 44360/07, 34128/09, 56597/12, 63752/12, 78214/13, 2844/14 и 40484/14).

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации или на задержку в их исполнении, заявители также указывали на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. 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 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012 и 2014 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

В своих жалобах заявители (12 человек) жаловались на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации или на задержку в их исполнении. Заявители также указывали на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

08 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 что отсутствует необходимость рассматривать жалобу на нарушение статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты), обязав государство-ответчика обеспечить исполнение соответствующих судебных решений в течение трех месяцев.

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/580-yushin-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

The ECHR judgment of 8 February 2018 in the case of Yushin and Others v. Russia (applications N 2403/06, 44360/07, 34128/09, 56597/12, 63752/12, 78214/13, 2844 / 14 and 40484/14).

The applicants successfully complained about the applicants' failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or the delay in their execution, the applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. 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 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012 and 2014, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

In their complaints, the applicants (12 persons) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or delay in their execution. The applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

On 8 February 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) and that there is no need to consider a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy), obliging the respondent State to enforce the relevant judgments within three months.


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/581-yushin-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 февраля 2018 года по делу "Синельникова и другие (Sinelnikova and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 41594/06, 52857/08, 39838/09, 9874/10, 47047/11, 22120/12 и 43683/12).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации или на задержку в их исполнении, заявители также указывали на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. 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 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 и 2012 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (семь человек) жаловались на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации или на задержку в их исполнении. Заявители также указывали на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

08 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 что отсутствует необходимость рассматривать жалобу на нарушение статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты), обязав государство-ответчика обеспечить исполнение соответствующих судебных решений в течение трех месяцев, а также выплатить двум заявителям по 6 000 евро каждому.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/582-sinelnikova-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of February 8, 2018 in the case of Sinelnikova and Others v. Russia (applications no. 41594/06, 52857/08, 39838/09, 9874/10, 47047/11, 22120/12 and 43683 /12).

 

The applicants successfully complained about the applicants' failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or the delay in their execution, the applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. 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 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (seven persons) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or of delay in their execution. The applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 8 February 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) and that there is no need to consider a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy), obliging the respondent State to enforce the relevant judgments within three months, as well as in To pay two applicants for 6 000 euros each.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/583-sinelnikova-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 февраля 2018 года по делу "Рыбалкин и другие (Rybalkin and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 42666/04, 21247/05, 43703/07, 52123/08, 46638/10 и 45246/12).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации или на задержку в их исполнении. Заявители также указывали на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи. 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 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010 и 2012 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (шесть человек) жаловались на неисполнение решений судов Российской Федерации или на задержку в их исполнении. Заявители также указывали на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

08 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 что отсутствует необходимость рассматривать жалобу на нарушение статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты), обязав государство-ответчика обеспечить исполнение соответствующих судебных решений в течение трех месяцев и выплатить заявителям 19 520 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/584-rybalkin-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

ECHR judgment of February 8, 2018 in the case of Rybalkin and Others v. Russia (applications no. 42666/04, 21247/05, 43703/07, 52123/08, 46638/10 and 45246/12).

 

In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or the delay in their execution. The applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. 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 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (six persons) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or delay in their execution. The applicants also pointed out that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 8 February 2018, on the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) and that there is no need consider a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy), obliging the respondent State to enforce the relevant judgments within three months and pay the applicants 19,520 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/585-rybalkin-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 февраля 2018 года по делу "Колесников и другие (Kolesnikov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 35105/10, 70164/14, 44068/15 и 17534/16).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на то, что не получали адекватной медицинской помощи во время содержания под стражей, некоторые 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, 2015 и 2016 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (четыре человека) жаловались на то, что не получали адекватной медицинской помощи во время содержания под стражей. Некоторые заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

08 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 трем заявителям по 15 000 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/586-kolesnikov-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 08 February 2018 in the case of Kolesnikov and Others v. Russia (applications no. 35105/10, 70164/14, 44068/15 and 17534/16).

 

The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints that they did not receive adequate medical care while in custody, 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, 2015 and 2016, 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 (four persons) complained that they did not receive adequate medical care while in custody. Some applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 8 February 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) , and ordered the respondent State to pay three applicants EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/587-kolesnikov-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 08 февраля 2018 года по делу "Коваленко и другие (Kovalenko and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 63337/16, 64653/16, 67251/16, 77738/16, 1106/17, 1862/17 и 2745/17).

 

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.

 

08 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 43 700 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/588-kovalenko-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of February 8, 2018 in the case of Kovalenko and Others v. Russia (applications N 63337/16, 64653/16, 67251/16, 77738/16, 1106/17, 1862/17 and 2745 / 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 8 February 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 43,700 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/589-kovalenko-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Emberi Jogok Európai Bírósága 14 2017. március ügy „és Ahmed Ilias (Ilias és Ahmed) ellen Magyarországon” (kérelmezői N 47287/15).

 

2015-ben a kérelmezőket segítették a panasz előkészítésében. Ezt követően a panaszt közölték Magyarországgal.

 

Ebben az esetben a kérelmezők hosszú időn keresztül sikeresen panaszt tettek a tranzitzónában való őrizetükért. Abban az esetben sérti a 3. cikk 4. és 5. cikke az egyezmény 13. az emberi jogok és alapvető szabadságok.

 

 

 

AZ ESET KÖRÜLMÉNYEK

 


A felperesek, a polgárok Banglades, megérkezett a tranzit területén a határ Magyarország és Szerbia közötti, és nyújtott be menedékjog iránti kérelmet. Kérelmüket elutasították, és visszavitték Szerbiába. Az egyezmény eljárás, panaszkodtak, különösen az a tény, hogy a fogva tartás a tranzit zónában illegális volt, hogy a feltételek a jogellenes bebörtönzése nem voltak kielégítőek, hogy a kiutasítás Szerbia kitéve őket a valós veszélye embertelen és megalázó bánásmód.

 


JOGSZABÁLYOK

 


Az egyezmény 3. cikkének való megfelelés tekintetében. a) A letartóztatás feltételei a tranzitzónában. A pályázókat egy kb. 110 négyzetméteres védett területen tartották. m 23 napig. Ezen a zónán kívül egy több konténerben lévő helyiséggel rendelkeztek. A szobában volt öt ágy, de abban az időszakban kapcsolatos az ügy körülményeinek, a felperesek voltak az egyedüli lakói. A jelentésben a magyar kormány az Európai Bizottság a Kínzás és Embertelen vagy megalázó bánásmód vagy büntetés (CPT) megállapította, hogy a rendelkezésre vizesblokkok nem igényelnek kommentárt és egészségügyi létesítmények elő, általában kedvező benyomást. A kérelmezők nem voltak sebezhetőbbek, mint bármely más menedékkérő, akit ott tartottak. Valóban nem volt megfelelő jogalapja a fogva tartás, valamint a hiányzó jogi alapot a szabadságvesztés hozzájárulhatnak érzésével uralkodó vitatott körülmények között, de figyelemmel megfelelő körülményeket és viszonylag rövid hivatali ideje panaszkodott a kezelés nem érte el a minimális szintet súlyossága szükséges , embertelen bánásmódot jelentenek.

 


HATÁROZAT

 


Az egyezmény 3. cikkében foglalt követelményeket nem sértették (egyhangúlag).

 

b) Szerbiába irányuló kitoloncolás. A magyar hatóságok hivatkoztak a harmadik országok biztonságos harmadik országainak jegyzékére. Nem veszik figyelembe a jelentések az ország és az egyéb bizonyítékok a felperesek által benyújtott, és lefektetjük őket tisztességtelen és ésszerűtlen bizonyítási terhet. Egy hiba miatt az első kérelmező megkérdezett tolmács segítségével Dari, a nyelv, amelyen nem beszél, illetve az idegenrendészeti hatóság adott neki egy szórólap az eljárásról a menedékjog és Dari. Ebben a tekintetben az ő esélyeit aktív részvételét az eljárásban, és magyarázza a részleteket a menekülés az ország rendkívül korlátozott. A kérelmezők írástudatlanok voltak, mindazonáltal a menedékjogi eljárásokról kapott valamennyi információ megtalálható a betegtájékoztatóban. Így úgy tűnik, hogy a hatóságok nem nyújtottak elegendő információt a kérelmezőknek az eljárásról. Translation megoldások esetükben kaptak az ügyvédjük két hónapon belül a vonatkozó döntés, amikor már elhagyta Magyarországot. A felperesek nem használja a hatékonysága a biztosítékokat, amelyek védik őket a kitettség valós a veszélye az embertelen vagy megalázó bánásmód 3. cikkének megsértését az Egyezmény.

 


HATÁROZAT

 


Az Egyezmény 3. cikkelyének (egyhangúlag) megsértését az ügyben követték el.

 

Ami az Egyezmény 5. cikkének (1) bekezdését illeti. a) A panasz elfogadhatósága. A Bíróságnak azt kellett megállapítani, hogy a felperes fogva tartás a tranzit területén szabadságelvonás értelmében az 5. cikk 1. § Az Egyezmény. Annak meghatározására, hogy egy személy szabadságától megfosztott, a kiindulási pont lehet a konkrét helyzetet, és figyelembe kell venni számos tényezőt.

 

A szabadságelvonás fogalma objektív és szubjektív elemeket tartalmaz. A cél elem tartalmaz típus, időtartam, hatásai és alkalmazási módja ennek az intézkedésnek az a lehetőség, hogy hagyja el a korlátozott területen, a mértéke felügyelet és ellenőrzés alatt a mozgás az arc és a elszigeteltség mértéke. A szubjektív elem magában foglalja, hogy a személy érvényes hozzájárulást adott-e ehhez a tartalomhoz.

 

A nélkülözés és a szabadságkorlátozás közötti különbség befolyásolta a mértéket vagy intenzitást, nem pedig a természet és a lét. Az a tény, hogy a felperesek is hagyja a tranzit zónában önként, nem zárja ki sérti a szabadsághoz való jogot.

 

A felpereseket több mint három hétig tartották. Őket egy védett településen tartották, ahol kívülről nem lehetett hozzáférni. Nem volt lehetősége arra, hogy belépjen Magyarország területére az övezeten kívül. Ennélfogva a felperesek nem választja a tartózkodást a tranzit zónában, és ezért nem tekinthetők úgy, hogy hozzájárultak a nélkülözés a szabadságától. Ha a kérelmező elhagyta Magyarország területét, a menedékkérelmet elutasították hiányában esélye megfontolásra érdemben. Következésképpen a tranzitzónában való fenntartása a tényleges szabadságvesztést jelentette.

 

b) Érdemes. Az első szempont a bekezdés „f” 1. bekezdés 5. cikk Az egyezmény lehetővé teszi, hogy a lefoglalásra egy menedékkérő vagy más bevándorló megszerezni az állami jóváhagyás megadásához. Az ilyen őrizet összeegyeztethetőnek kell lennie az általános cél az 5. cikk Az egyezmény, ami az volt, hogy biztosítsa a szabadsághoz való jogot, és az a tény, hogy senki sem megfosztani önkényesen. Ahhoz minősíthető önkényesnek, fogva tartás, összhangban alpont „f” 1. bekezdés 5. cikk Az Egyezmény kell elvégezni jóhiszeműen és szorosan kapcsolódik a célból, hogy megakadályozza az illetéktelen belépés egy személy be az országba. Helyezzük és fogvatartási körülmények megfelelő legyen, tekintettel arra, hogy az intézkedés nem azoknak, akik a bűncselekményt elkövető, és a külföldiek, akik gyakran féltve az életüket, már elmenekült az országból, és időtartama az ilyen fogva tartás nem haladhatja meg ésszerűen szükséges az üldözött célokat.

 

A felperesek fogva tartása 23 napig tartott. Az alkalmazandó szabályokat nem hozták meg kellő óvintézkedésekkel és kiszámíthatósággal. A letartóztatott kérelmezők tartalma ténylegesen gyakorlati megoldásnak tűnik. A felpereseket szabadságuktól megfosztott hiányában hivatalos hatósági döntések kizárólag azért, mert tág értelmezése az általános jogállamiság, az eljárás, amely nem felel meg az előírt követelményeknek a Bíróság ítélkezési gyakorlata.

 


HATÁROZAT

 


Abban az esetben sérti az 5. cikk Az Egyezmény (egyhangúlag).

 

A Bíróság egyhangúlag megsértését állapította meg az 5. cikk 4. § Az egyezmény és a 13. cikk 3. cikkével összefüggésben az egyezmény.

 


KÁRTÉRÍTÉS

 


Az Egyezmény 41. cikkének alkalmazása során. A Bíróság minden felperes számára 10 000 eurót ítélt meg a nem vagyoni károkért.

 

 

 

Kiadványforrás: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/574-ilias-es-ahmed-ellen-magyarorszagon .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR judgment of 14 March 2017 in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (application No. 47287/15).

 

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

 

In the case, the applicants successfully complained about their detention in the transit zone for a long period of time. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 3, Article 5, paragraph 4, and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicants, citizens of Bangladesh, arrived in a transit zone on the border between Hungary and Serbia and applied for asylum. Their petitions were rejected, and they were returned to Serbia. In the conventional proceedings, they complained, inter alia, that their deprivation of liberty in the transit zone was illegal, that the conditions for their allegedly unlawful deprivation of liberty were inadequate and that their expulsion to Serbia exposed them to a real threat of inhuman and degrading treatment.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 3 of the Convention. (a) Conditions of detention in the transit zone. The applicants were held in a fenced area of ​​approximately 110 square meters. m for 23 days. Next to this zone, they were provided with a room in one of several containers. There were five beds in the room, but in the period relevant to the circumstances of the case, the applicants were the only residents. In its report to the Government of Hungary, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) found that the sanitary equipment provided did not require comment and that the medical facilities produced a generally favorable impression. The applicants were no more vulnerable than any other asylum-seeker detained at the time. Indeed, there were no proper legal grounds for their detention, and the absence of a legal basis for their deprivation of liberty could contribute to the feeling of inferiority prevailing in the conditions challenged, but given satisfactory material conditions and a relatively short period of stay, the appeal complained of did not reach the minimum level of severity necessary for that , to constitute inhuman treatment.

 


DECISION

 


The requirements of Article 3 of the Convention were not violated (unanimously).

 

(b) Expulsion to Serbia. The Hungarian authorities referred to a schematic reference to the list of third countries' secure third countries. They did not take into account the country reports and other evidence submitted by the applicants and placed an unfair and excessive burden of proof on them. Owing to the first applicant's error, the interpreter was interviewed with a Dari, a language he did not speak, and the immigration authority provided him with an information leaflet on the asylum procedure also in Dari. In this regard, his chances of actively participating in the proceedings and explaining the details of his flight from the country were extremely limited. The applicants were illiterate, nevertheless all the information they received about the asylum proceedings was contained in the leaflet. Thus, it appears that the authorities did not provide the applicants with sufficient information on the procedure. The decision on their case was transferred to their lawyer two months after the relevant decision was made when they had already left Hungary. The applicants did not enjoy effective safeguards that could protect them from exposure to a real threat of inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention.

 


DECISION

 


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

 

Concerning compliance with article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention. (a) Admissibility of the complaint. The Court had to determine whether the detention of the applicants in the transit area amounted to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. To determine whether a person is deprived of his or her freedom, the starting point should be his specific situation and a number of factors must be taken into account.

 

The concept of deprivation of liberty contains objective and subjective elements. The objective element includes the type, duration, consequences and method of application of this measure, the possibility to leave a restricted area, the degree of supervision and control over the movement of a person and the degree of isolation. The subjective element includes whether the person gave a valid consent to this content.

 

The difference between deprivation and restraint of freedom affected degree or intensity, and not nature and being. The fact that the applicants could leave the transit zone voluntarily did not exclude the violation of the right to freedom.

 

The applicants were held for more than three weeks. They were kept in a protected settlement, in which there was no access from outside. They did not have the opportunity to enter the territory of Hungary outside the zone. Accordingly, the applicants did not choose to stay in the transit zone and therefore could not be considered to have given consent to the deprivation of their liberty. If the applicants had left the territory of Hungary, their applications for refugee status would have been rejected in the absence of a chance to be examined on the merits. Consequently, their maintenance in the transit zone amounted to actual deprivation of liberty.

 

(b) Merits. The first aspect of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention allows the detention of an asylum seeker or other immigrant before the authorization of the State to enter. Such detention should be compatible with the general purpose of Article 5 of the Convention, which was to ensure the right to freedom and that no one should be deprived of liberty in an arbitrary manner. In order not to be qualified as arbitrary, detention in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention must be carried out in good faith and be closely related to the prevention of unauthorized entry of a person into the country. The place and conditions of detention should be adequate in view of the fact that the measure is applicable not to the perpetrators, but to foreigners who, often fearing for their lives, have left their country, and the duration of such detention should not exceed the reasonably required for the persecuted goals.

 

The applicants' detention lasted 23 days. Applicable rules were not formulated with sufficient precaution and predictability. The content of the applicants in custody appears to have been de facto as a practical settlement. The applicants were deprived of their liberty in the absence of a formal decision by the authorities solely because of a broad interpretation of the general rule of law, the procedure of which did not meet the requirements set out in the Court's case-law.

 


DECISION

 


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

 

The Court also unanimously found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded each applicant 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/575-ilias-and-ahmed-v-hungary .

 

 

Sodba ESČP z dne 7. marca 2017 v primeru "Cerovškova in Božičnika" proti Sloveniji "(pritožbe N 68939/12 in 68949/12).

 

V letu 2012 so prosilcem pomagali pri pripravi pritožb. Zatem so bile pritožbe združene in sporočene Sloveniji.

 

V tem primeru so bile pritožbe uspešno preučene za pripravo motiviranih stavkov sodnikov, ki niso sodelovali v sojenju. Prišlo je do kršitve člena 6 Konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin.

 

 

 

OKOLIŠČINE DELA

 


Pritožnika je bil obsojen in obsojen zaradi kraje s strani sodnika posameznika. Sodnik je po izreku obsodbe odstopil, ne da bi se podala motivirana različica sodbe. Tri leta kasneje sta dva sodnika, ki niso sodelovali v sojenju, na podlagi spisa zapisala sodbo. Obsoja tožečih strank je ostala nespremenjena, ko je bila pritožba preučena, če ni neposrednega pregleda dokazov. Postopek konvencije so se pritožnika pritožila na podlagi 1. odstavka 6. člena Konvencije, da je prišlo do kršitve njihove pravice do poštenega sojenja, ker sodnik ni navede razloge za odpravo njihovih kazni.

 


VPRAŠANJA ZAKONA

 


V zvezi s skladnostjo s prvim odstavkom 6. člena konvencije. Motivirana razsodba je pomembna za zagotavljanje ustreznega izvrševanja sodstva in za preprečevanje samovoljnosti. Sodnik zaveda, da je treba svojo odločitev motivirati z objektivnimi razlogi, eden od jamstev proti samovoljnosti. Dolžnost svinca motivacije sodnik prispeva tudi k zaupanju javnosti in obdolženec v sodbi in ugotavlja morebitno pristranskost sodnika. Kot je bilo ugotovljeno v načeloma kazenskem postopku sodnik opazovanja neposrednost obnašanje prič in vlagateljev in oceni lahko njihova zanesljivost, da je pomemben, če ne celo odločilni element pri ugotavljanju dejstev, na katerih je obsodba temelji kandidate. Sodnik je moral svoje pripombe navesti v pisni motiv, ki upravičuje stavke.

 

Kar se Glede na vprašanje, ali ustvariti odstop sodnika domneva, da je vzrok niso motivirani kazni so izjemne okoliščine, ki upravičujejo odstopanje od standarda notranjih postopkov, je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je bil datum upokojitve naj bi bili znani po tem vnaprej. Tako je bilo mogoče ukrepati, da ga na koncu primer tožečih strank sami ali s pomočjo sodnika zgodnejši fazi postopka. Kolikor je mogoče razumeti, so bile zadeve tožečih strank obravnavane ločeno, čeprav jih je isti sodnik. Zadeva ni bila posebej zapletena in tožeče stranke so sporočile svojo namero, da se pritožbo pritožijo takoj, ko je bila napovedana. To je pomenilo, da je bil sodnik nemudoma obveščen o potrebi po pripravi utemeljene sodbe. Še posebej presenetljivo je, da kljub 30-dnevnemu obdobju, določenemu z zakonom, ni bilo motiviranih odmerkov približno tri leta po objavi.

 

Edini način, da se nadomestilo za nezmožnost, da presodijo o obsodbi predstavitev tožeče stranke motivov je, da se ukvarjajo z revizijo. Ko je sodnik odstopil, so bile stavke že napovedane, pričevanje prosilcev in prič je bilo mogoče pripisati. Višja sodišča so ostala brez spremembe sodbe sodišča prve stopnje brez neposrednega zaslišanja dokazov. Zato ni mogoče trditi, da je to pomanjkljivost odpravila pritožbena sodišča.

 


SKLEP

 


Kršitev zahtev iz 6. člena Konvencije (soglasno) je bila storjena.

 


NADOMESTILO

 


Pri uporabi člena 41 Konvencije. Sodišče je za vsakega tožečo stranko nakazalo 5.000 EUR v zvezi z nepremoženjsko škodo.

 

 

 

Vir izdaje: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/576-cerovskova-in-bozicnika-proti-sloveniji .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR judgment of 07 March 2017 in the case of "Cerovsek and Bozicnik" v. Slovenia "(applications N 68939/12 and 68949/12).

 

In 2012, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to Slovenia.

 

In the case, complaints were successfully examined for the preparation of motivated sentences by judges who did not participate in the trial. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicants were convicted and sentenced for theft by a single judge. The judge resigned after the sentencing, without making a motivated version of the verdict. Three years later, two judges who did not participate in the trial, wrote a verdict based on the case file. The applicants' conviction was left unchanged when the complaint was examined in the absence of a direct review of evidence. In the conventional proceedings, the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that there had been a violation of their right to a fair trial, since the judge did not indicate the reasons for their convictions.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. A motivated verdict is important for ensuring the proper administration of justice and preventing arbitrariness. A judge's awareness of the need to motivate his decision with objective grounds is one of the guarantees against arbitrariness. The duty of the judge to give reasons also contributes to the confidence of the public and the accused in the decision and allows to identify the possible bias of the judge. As the principle of the immediacy of criminal proceedings is recognized, the observation by a judge of the conduct of witnesses and applicants and the assessment of their reliability can constitute an important, if not decisive, element in establishing the facts on which the applicants' conviction is based. The judge had to state his observations in a written motivation justifying the sentences.

 

With regard to the issue of whether the judge's resignation, presumably a reason for the failure to submit motivated sentences, created exceptional circumstances that justified a departure from the standard domestic procedure, the Court noted that the date of her resignation should have been known to her in advance. Thus, it was possible to take steps to terminate the applicants' case on their own or with the involvement of another judge at an earlier stage of the proceedings. As far as it can be understood, the applicants' cases were dealt with separately, albeit by the same judge. The case was not particularly complex, and the applicants notified their intention to appeal the verdict as soon as it was announced. This meant that the judge was immediately informed of the need to produce a motivated verdict. It is especially surprising that, despite the 30-day period established by law, motivated sentences were not made approximately three years after the announcement.

 

The only way to compensate for the impossibility of presenting the motives for convicting the applicants by the judge was to decide on the revision. When the judge resigned, the sentences were already announced, and the testimony of the applicants and witnesses was attributable information. The higher courts left without a change the verdict of the court of first instance without direct hearing of the evidence. Consequently, it can not be asserted that this deficiency was eliminated by the appellate courts.

 


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 EUR 5,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/577-cerovsek-and-bozicnik-v-slovenia .

 

 

AİHM'nin 7 Mart 2017 tarihli kararında "Döner ve Diğerleri" / Türkiye davası (29994/02 no'lu şikayet).

 

2002 yılında, başvuranlar şikayetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuşlardır. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.

 

Dava, çocuklarının Kürtçe eğitim alma hakkını isteyen ebeveynlerin tutukluluk ve taciz şikayetlerini başarılı bir şekilde incelemiştir. Dava, İnsan Haklarının ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunmasına İlişkin Sözleşme'nin 5. maddesinin 3 ve 5. paragraflarının ve 10. Maddesinin şartlarının ihlaline neden olmuştur.

 

 

 

OLAYIN DURUMU

 


Aralık 2001'de, başvuran çocuklarının katıldıkları kamu ilköğretim okullarında Kürtçe eğitim alması soran, Eğitim Bakanlığını istedi. başvurucuların evlerinin sonradan onların eylemleri yasadışı silahlı örgüt (PKK) uyarısı üzerine işlendiği şüphesiyle arandı. Hiçbir suçlayıcı malzemeleri bulunmuş olmasına rağmen, başvuru sahipleri tutuklandı ve dört gün boyunca tüm gözaltına ve bazı neredeyse bir ay tutuklu kaldı. Tüm adaylar, yardım ve yasadışı silahlı örgüt yataklıktan biri hariç, suçlanıyor ve devlet güvenlik mahkemesinde çalıştı. Hepsi nihai analizde haklıydı.

 

Sözleşmenin işlemler başvuranlar özellikle anayasal hakkın kullanımı için cezai kovuşturmaya maruz kalmışlardır olması, bu tür eylemleri suç haline getiren iç yasanın hükümlerinin yokluğuna rağmen, devlet yetkililerinin hitap etmek, şikayet etti. Sözleşme'nin 7. maddesinin ihlal edildiğinden şikayetçi oldular.

 


HUKUK SORUNLARI

 


Sözleşmenin 10. Maddesi ile uyum konusunda. Davanın olaylara ilişkin kendi yasal niteliğini verme hakkına sahip olan AİHS'nin 7. maddesine şikayet AİHS'nin 10. uyarınca incelenmesi gerektiği kanaatine varılmıştır. O açıkça gerçekte Kursk dilinde eğitim alma zorunluluğu için geçerli değildi, çünkü zulüm edilmez başvuranın şikayetini dayanaktan yoksun kabul edilemez ilan etti ve bu nedenle ifade özgürlüğü hakkını kullanmıştır olan bir kişi olarak kabul edilemedi.

 

Sadece "genel çıkar" devlet organlarına hitap onlar, yani onların gözaltı ve hapis, maruz kalmışlardır kalan adaylar, bir takım önlemlerle, ilgili olarak, ifade özgürlüğü haklarını kullanabilmeleri müdahale teşkil. DGM haklarını iddia edilen ihlali kabul etmedi ve bunlarla ilgili geri ödeme vermedi onlar neticede beraat ettiler olması, onların mağdur statüsünü mahrum etmedi.

 

Orada müdahalenin kanun tarafından öngörülen olup olmadığını belirlemek için gerek idi, veya her durumda demokratik bir toplumda gerekli değildi çünkü olsun o meşru bir amaç. Savcı ve davalı Devlet tarafından ileri sürülen argümanlar ki, başvuranların önlemler nedeniyle başvuruların içeriği değil alındı ​​ve onlar yasadışı silahlı örgüt uyarısı üzerine kolektif eylemin parçası olarak sunmuş gerekiyordu bu nedenle belliydi. Mahkeme teröristlere karşı mücadeleyi oluşturur zorlukları hafife olmamasına rağmen, bu gerçek bile, Sözleşme'nin 10. maddesine göre yükümlülüğünden yetkilileri muaf kılmaz. Böylece, ifade özgürlüğü meşru ulusal güvenliğin, toprak bütünlüğünün veya kamu düzeni yararı kısıtlanmış olabilir rağmen, bu tür sınırlamalar halen geçerli ve yeterli nedenlerle haklı olmalı ve orantılı bir acil toplumsal ihtiyaca cevap.

 

Ancak, mevcut durumda, devletin yetkili makamları, ilgili gerçeklerin önlemler makul tahmin için bir temel olarak kullanılmaz ve AİHS'nin 10. somutlaşan ilkelere uyumlu standartların geçerli değildi. onun bulgu yaparak Mahkeme ilkokullarda Kürtçe eğitime erişim için uygulama "kamu yararını ilgilendiren konularda bu kadar Kürt kökenli Türk vatandaşlarının sosyal ve kültürel haklar konusunda Türkiye'de kamuoyu tartışmasına açılan ve edildiğini (i) kaydetti "(ii) yetkililerin kamu yararına bir konuda tartışmaya ilişkin davada ceza muhakemeleri işlemedeki kısıtlama ihtiyacını göstermek için başarısız, ancak bunun yerine mevcut kullanılan ve m yasal bir cephanelik neredeyse baskıcı bir şekilde, (iii) dilekçe ya da ifade edildiği formda yer alan herhangi bir görüş, başvuru sahiplerinin tedavi huzurlu doğası ve onlar yasadışı silahlı örgütün amaç ve talimat eşleşebilir gerçeği hakkında şüphe uyandıracak gelmez Sözleşmenin 10. korunması kapsamında uygulanmasına engel değildir ve (iv) başvuru sahipleri hala eğitim ve yabancı dil öğretimi üzerine, deneme yürütülen zamanda (Kanun N 2923) için Aslında, en azından ilk aşamada özel olarak, bu tür bir oluşumu sağlayan değiştirilebilir.

 


KARAR

 


Sözleşmesi (oybirliğiyle) 10. maddesinin ihlal durumunda.

 

Başvuranların gözaltında tutulduğu konusunda, 5 Sözleşme'nin 5. - Mahkeme ayrıca paragraf 3'ün ihlal edildiğine karar düzenledi.

 


TAZMİNAT

 

 

 

Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. Mahkeme, başvurucuya manevi tazminat olarak 6,500 avro ödenmesine karar vermiş olup, Sözleşme'nin 10. maddesi kapsamındaki şikâyetler, esasa ilişkin olarak incelenmek üzere kabul edilemez ve geri kalan başvuranların her biri için 10.000 Avro kabul edilmez.

 

 

 

Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/578-doner-ve-digerleri-turkiye-davasi .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 7 March 2017 in the case of "Doner and Others" v. Turkey (application No. 29994/02).

 

In 2002, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.

 

The case successfully examined a complaint of detention and harassment of parents who asked for their children's right to receive education in Kurdish. The case involved violation of the requirements of paragraphs 3 to 5 of Article 5 and Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


In December 2001, the applicants filed motions with the education authorities, asking that their children receive education in Kurdish in the public primary schools they attended. The applicants 'homes were subsequently searched on suspicion that their actions were committed at the instigation of an illegal armed organization (the Kurdish Workers' Party). Although no incriminating material was found, the applicants were detained and detained, all for four days, and some remained in custody for almost a month. All but one of the applicants were charged and convicted in the State Security Court for complicity with an illegal armed organization. All of them were, in the final analysis, justified.

 

In the conventional proceedings, the applicants complained, in particular, that they had been prosecuted for using the constitutional right to appeal to state bodies, despite the absence of provisions in the legislation of the country that would criminalize such acts. They complained of a violation of Article 7 of the Convention.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 10 of the Convention. Having the right to give its own legal qualification to the facts of the case, the Court concluded that the complaint under Article 7 of the Convention was to be considered in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention. He declared that the applicant's complaint, which was not prosecuted, was not inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded, since in reality he did not apply for an education in the Kursk language and could not therefore be considered a person who exercised his right to freedom of expression.

 

As for the remaining applicants, a number of measures to which they were subjected, namely their detention and deprivation of liberty, just for appealing to public authorities on the issue of "general interest", constituted an interference with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression. The fact that they were eventually justified did not deprive them of their victim status, since the State Security Court did not recognize the alleged violation of their rights and did not provide compensation in connection with it.

 

There was no need to determine whether the interference was prescribed by law or whether it pursued a legitimate aim, since in any case it was not necessary in a democratic society. From the arguments put forward by the prosecutor and the respondent State, it was evident that the applicants had been taken measures not because of the content of their petitions, but because they had allegedly submitted them as part of a collective action to incite an illegal armed organization. Although the Court does not underestimate the complexity of the fight against terrorism, this fact alone does not absolve the authorities of the obligation under article 10 of the Convention. Thus, despite the fact that freedom of expression may legitimately be restricted in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public order, such restrictions must still be justified by relevant and sufficient reasons and to answer a pressing social need proportionately.

 

However, in the present case, the competent authorities of the state are not used as a basis for measures reasonable estimate of relevant facts and did not apply standards that are compatible with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention. In making its conclusion, the Court observes (i) that requests for education in the Kurdish language in primary schools were filed during the public debate in Turkey concerning the social and cultural rights of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin, and therefore referred to a matter of "public interest" ", (ii) the state authorities did not demonstrate the necessary restraint when referring to the criminal procedure in a case concerning the debate on a matter of public interest, but instead used the available and m legal arsenal almost oppressive manner, (iii) any opinions contained in the petitions or the form in which they were expressed, does not raise doubts about the peaceful nature of the treatment of applicants, and the fact that they can match the goals or instructions of an illegal armed organization , did not eliminate motions from the scope of protection of Article 10 of the Convention, and (iv) while the applicants were still being prosecuted, the Law on Education and Teaching in a Foreign Language (Law No. 2923) would.

 


DECISION

 


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

 

The Court also ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 3-5 of the Convention, as regards the detention of the applicants.

 


COMPENSATION

 

 

 

In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded EUR 6,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant, whose complaint under Article 10 of the Convention was declared inadmissible for examination on the merits and EUR 10,000 for each of the remaining applicants.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/579-doner-and-others-v-turkey .