Новости от 06 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 06.08.2018 09:30

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 30 января 2018 года по делу "Степан Зимин (Stepan Zimin) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 63686/13 и 60894/14).

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителя на то, что его предварительное содержание под стражей было необоснованным, а также на то, что условия этапирования в суд и обратно, равно как и содержание в стеклянной кабинке в судебном заседании нарушали его права. Заявитель также жаловался на нарушение его права на свободу выражения мнения и свободу собрания. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3, пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод. Европейский Суд также шестью голосами против одного постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 11 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

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

В своих жалобах заявитель, участвовавший в демонстрации 6 мая 2012 года, жаловался на то, что его предварительное содержание под стражей было необоснованным, а также на то, что условия этапирования в суд и обратно, равно как и содержание в стеклянной кабинке в судебном заседании нарушали его права. Заявитель также жаловался на нарушение его права на свободу выражения мнения и свободу собрания.

30 января 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требования статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток), пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность). Европейский Суд также шестью голосами против одного постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 11 Конвенции (свобода собраний и объединений), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 12 500 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда. Особое мнение высказал судья Д. Дедов (избранный от Российской Федерации).

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/612-stepan-zimin-protiv-rossii .

 

The ECHR judgment of 30 January 2018 in the case of Stepan Zimin v. Russia (applications N 63686/13 and 60894/14).

In the case, the applicant's complaints that his pre-trial detention was unfounded, as well as the fact that the conditions for transfer to and from the court, as well as the content in the glass booth in the court session violated his rights. The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. There has been a violation of Article 3, paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court also held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In 2013 and 2014, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

In his complaints, the applicant, who participated in the demonstration on 6 May 2012, complained that his preliminary detention was unfounded, and that the conditions for transfer to and from the court, as well as the content in the glass booth in the court session violated his rights. The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

On 30 January 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person). The Court also held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly and association) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 12,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. A special opinion was expressed by Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation).


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/613-stepan-zimin-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 30 января 2018 года по делу "Полихович (Polikhovich) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 62630/13 и 5562/15).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителя на то, что его предварительное содержание под стражей было необоснованным, а также на то, что условия этапирования в суд и обратно, равно как и содержание в стеклянной кабинке в судебном заседании нарушали его права. Заявитель также жаловался на нарушение его права на свободу выражения мнения и свободу собрания. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3, пункта 3 статьи 5, статьи 11 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

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

 

В своих жалобах заявитель, участвовавший в демонстрации 6 мая 2012 года, жаловался на то, что его предварительное содержание под стражей было необоснованным, а также на то, что условия этапирования в суд и обратно, равно как и содержание в стеклянной кабинке в судебном заседании нарушали его права. Заявитель также жаловался на нарушение его права на свободу выражения мнения и свободу собрания.

 

30 января 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требования статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток), пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность), статьи 11 Конвенции (свобода собраний и объединений), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 12 500 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда. Совпадающее мнение высказал судья Д. Дедов (избранный от Российской Федерации).

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/614-polikhovich-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 30 January 2018 in the case of Polikhovich v. The Russian Federation (applications N 62630/13 and 5562/15).

 

In the case, the applicant's complaints that his pre-trial detention was unfounded, as well as the fact that the conditions for transfer to and from the court, as well as the content in the glass booth in the court session violated his rights. The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 3, paragraph 3 of Article 5, Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2013 and 2015 the applicant was assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaints, the applicant, who participated in the demonstration on 6 May 2012, complained that his preliminary detention was unfounded, and that the conditions for transfer to and from the court, as well as the content in the glass booth in the court session violated his rights. The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

 

On 30 January 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person), Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly and associations), and obliged the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 12,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The concurring opinion was expressed by Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/615-polikhovich-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 30 января 2018 года по делу "Барабанов (Barabanov) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 4966/13 и 5550/15).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителя на то, что его предварительное содержание под стражей было необоснованным, а также на то, что рассмотрение апелляционной жалобы на решение о содержании под стражей не было проведено безотлагательно. Заявитель также жаловался на нарушение его права на свободу выражения мнения и свободу собрания. По делу допущено нарушение требований пунктов 3 и 4 статьи 5 Конвенции, также шестью голосами против одного постановлено, что имело место нарушение статьи 11 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

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

 

В своих жалобах заявитель, участвовавший в демонстрации 6 мая 2012 года, жаловался на то, что его предварительное содержание под стражей было необоснованным, а также на то, что рассмотрение апелляционной жалобы на решение о содержании под стражей не было проведено безотлагательно. Заявитель также жаловался на нарушение его права на свободу выражения мнения и свободу собрания.

 

30 января 2018 года по жалобам поданным заявителем Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требования пунктов 3 и 4 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность). Европейский Суд также шестью голосами против одного постановил, что имело место нарушение статьи 11 Конвенции (свобода собраний и объединений), и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 10 000 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда. Особое мнение высказал судья Д. Дедов (избранный от Российской Федерации).

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/616-barabanov-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 30 January 2018 in the case of Barabanov v. The Russian Federation (applications N 4966/13 and 5550/15).

 

The case successfully considered the applicant's complaints that his pre-trial detention was unfounded, and that consideration of the appeal against the decision to detain him was not carried out without delay. The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, also by six votes to one it was held that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2013 and 2015 the applicant was assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaints, the applicant, who participated in the demonstration on 6 May 2012, complained that his pre-trial detention was unfounded, and that consideration of the appeal against the decision to detain him was not carried out without delay. The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

 

On 30 January 2018, on the complaints 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 person). The Court also held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly and association) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. A special opinion was expressed by Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/617-barabanov-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 16 января 2018 года по делу "Андрей Медведев (Andrey Medvedev) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 75737/13).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя на лишение его судом права собственности на квартиру и последующее выселение из нее, несмотря на то, что он являлся добросовестным покупателем. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 8 Конвенции, статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2013 года заявителю была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.

 

16 января 2018 года по жалобе поданной заявителем в рассматриваемом Постановлении о выплате справедливой компенсации Европейский Суд обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителю 89 660 евро в качестве компенсации материального ущерба, так как ранее Европейский Суд установил нарушение требований статьи 8 Конвенции (право на уважение частной и семейной жизни), статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции (защита собственности) по жалобе заявителя на лишение его судом права собственности на квартиру и последующее выселение из нее, несмотря на то, что он являлся добросовестным покупателем.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/618-andrey-medvedev-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

ECHR Ordinance of 16 January 2018 in the case "Andrey Medvedev (against Russia)" (application No. 75737/13).

 

In the case, the applicant's complaint to deprive his court of the right to own the apartment and subsequent eviction from it, despite the fact that he was a bona fide buyer, was successfully considered. The case involved a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2013, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

On 16 January 2018, on a complaint lodged by the applicant in the judgment in question on the payment of fair compensation, the Court ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 89,660 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, since the Court had previously found a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) on the applicant's complaint that his court has deprived him of the right of ownership of the apartment and subsequent eviction from it, despite the fact that he was a bona fide buyer.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/619-andrey-medvedev-v-russia .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 11 января 2018 года по делу "Мокин и другие (Mokin and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 49876/16, 52551/16, 54118/16, 54239/16, 54245/16, 54598/16, 57452/16, 75107/16, 78505/16, 79536/16, 6161/17, 6252/17 и 6259/17).

 

По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток) в отношении всех заявителей, в отношении отдельных заявителей требование статьи 13 (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты) Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

В 2016 и 2017 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.

 

В своих жалобах заявители (13 человек) жаловались на бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. Некоторые заявители также жаловались на то, что они не располагали эффективным средством правовой защиты в этой связи.

 

11 января 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 68 800 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда. Заявителям были присуждены различные суммы от 5 000 до 7 500 евро.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/620-mokin-i-drugie-protiv-rossii .

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 11 January 2018 in the case of Mokin and Others v. Russia (applications no. 49876/16, 52551/16, 54118/16, 54239/16, 54245/16, 54598/16, 57452 / 16, 75107/16, 78505/16, 79536/16, 6161/17, 6252/17 and 6259/17).

 

The applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered in the case. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, in respect of certain applicants, the requirement of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

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 (13 persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Some applicants also complained that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 11 January 2018, on 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 68,800 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,000 to 7,500 euros.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/621-mokin-and-others-v-russia .

 

 

Arrest EHRM van 14 februari 2017 in de zaak Hokkeling tegen Nederland (verzoekschrift nr. 30749/12).

 

In 2012 werd de aanvrager bijgestaan bij het voorbereiden van de verzoekschrift. De verzoekschrift is vervolgens gecommuniceerd naar Nederland.

 

In het geval werd de klacht voor een volledige herziening van de strafzaak in afwezigheid van de beschuldigde met succes overwogen. Er is sprake van schending van artikel 6 van het Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden.

 

 

 

OMSTANDIGHEDEN VAN DE ZAAK

 


In mei 2007 is verzoeker veroordeeld voor misdrijven in verband met drugshandel, en het veroorzaken van zwaar lichamelijk letsel dat resulteerde in de dood van het slachtoffer, en werd veroordeeld tot vier jaar en zes maanden gevangenisstraf. Hij en de aanklager kwamen tegen het vonnis in beroep. In maart 2009, toen zijn klacht nog in behandeling was, werd de aanvrager vrijgelaten uit de gevangenis in Nederland. Kort daarna werd hij vastgehouden en vastgehouden in Noorwegen voor andere misdaden die verband hielden met de illegale drugshandel. 18 juni 2010 Hof van Beroep in Nederland na een volledige herziening van de zaak de aanvrager bij verstek veroordeeld en verhoogde zijn veroordeling tot acht jaar in de gevangenis.

 

In de conventionele procedure klaagde verzoeker krachtens artikel 6 van het verdrag dat hij niet persoonlijk aan de hoorzittingen in Nederland kon deelnemen.

 


RECHTSSTUKKEN

 


Met betrekking tot de naleving van lid 1 en subparagraaf "c" van lid 3 van artikel 6 van het verdrag. Indien het hof van beroep van mening dat de zaak vanuit het oogpunt van de feiten en de wet en geven een volledige beoordeling van de kwestie van schuld of onschuld, moet het niet worden toegestaan ​​om uit te geven zonder een directe beoordeling van het getuigenis gegeven door de verdachte. Falen van het Hof van Beroep op maatregelen die het mogelijk maken dat verzoekster haar recht op deelname aan de hoorzitting over de verdiensten uit te oefenen overwegen, hoe meer trudnopostizhim dat zijn straf werd verhoogd tot acht jaar, wat betekende dat na terugkeer in Nederland de aanvrager moest een periode in aanvulling om te dienen , die al is geserveerd. Het Hof heeft ingestemd met de respondent staat dat verzoeksters detentie in Noorwegen, is een direct gevolg van zijn eigen gedrag en de legitieme belangen van familieleden en de samenleving van het slachtoffer te erkennen als geheel om de strafzaak tegen verzoeker tijdig afgerond.

 

Echter, gezien de belangrijke plaats die het recht op een eerlijk proces houdt in een democratische samenleving, noch de aanwezigheid van de aanvrager tijdens de hoorzitting tijdens de procedure voor het Gerecht van eerste aanleg, noch de actieve uitvoering van de verdediging kon niet compenseren voor de afwezigheid van de aanvrager in de prive-rechtbank van tweede aanleg.

 


BESLUIT

 


In het geval er sprake was van een overtreding van de vereisten van artikel 6 van het Verdrag (weergegeven door zes stemmen "voor" met één - "tegen").

 


COMPENSATIE

 


Bij de toepassing van artikel 41 van het verdrag. De vaststelling van een feit van een overtreding op zich vormt voldoende billijke compensatie.

 

 

 

Bron van publicatie: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/606-hokkeling-tegen-nederland .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR judgment of 14 February 2017 in the case of Hokkeling v. The Netherlands (application No. 30749/12).

 

In 2012, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. The application was subsequently communicated to the Netherlands.

 

In the case, the complaint for a full review of the criminal case in the absence of the accused was successfully considered. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


In May 2007, the applicant was found guilty of crimes related to drug trafficking and serious bodily harm, resulting in the death of the victim, and was sentenced to four years and six months of imprisonment. He and the prosecutor appealed against the verdict. In March 2009, when his complaint was still being considered, the applicant was released from prison in the Netherlands. Shortly thereafter, he was detained and detained in Norway for other crimes related to illicit drug trafficking. On 18 June 2010, the appellate court in the Netherlands, after a full review of the case, convicted the applicant in absentia and increased his sentence to eight years in prison.

 

In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not been able to personally participate in the hearings in the Netherlands.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with paragraph 1 and subparagraph "c" of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention. If the appellate court considers the case from the point of view of facts and law and gives a full assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence, it should not resolve the matter without directly assessing the evidence given personally by the accused. The refusal of the Court of Appeal to consider measures that would allow the applicant to exercise his right to participate in the hearing on the merits is all the more difficult to understand that his punishment was increased to eight years, which meant that after returning to the Netherlands the applicant had to serve a term in addition to that , which has already been served. The Court agreed with the respondent Government that the applicant's detention in Norway was a direct consequence of his own conduct and recognized as legitimate the interests of the relatives of the victim and the society as a whole that the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be completed promptly.

 

However, in view of the important place that the right to a fair trial rests in a democratic society, neither the presence of the applicant at the hearings during the trial in the trial court nor the active exercise of defense by the lawyer could compensate for the applicant's personal absence in the court of second instance.

 


DECISION

 


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

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The finding of a fact of a violation in itself constitutes sufficient fair compensation.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/607-hokkeling-v-the-netherlands .

 

 

Пресуда на ЕСЧП од 9 февруари 2017 година, во случај на "Селмани и други (Селмани и други) против Македонија" (жалба N 67259/14).

 

Во 2014 година, жалителите беа помогнати при подготовката на жалбата. Потоа, жалбата била доставена до Македонија.

 

Во случај на успешно разгледа жалбата за присилно отстранување на кандидати, кои се новинари, што доведува покривање на парламентарните дебати, парламентарни галерии прес-припадници на безбедносните сили, недостатокот на усна расправа во постапката пред судот за отстранување на жалителите од галериите на парламентарните печатот. Случајот вклучувал повреди на барањата од член 6, член 10 од Конвенцијата за заштита на човековите права и основни слободи.

 

 

 

ОКОЛНОСТИ НА СЛУЧАЈОТ

 


Апликантите беа новинари кои ги покриваа парламентарните дебати, за време на кои немири беа поттикнати од група членови на парламентот, кои ги принудија безбедносните сили да интервенираат во ситуацијата. Кога жалителите одбија да ја почитуваат наредбата за чистење на галеријата, тие биле насилно повлечени од таму. Уставниот суд, без одржување на усна расправа, утврди дека службата за безбедност одлучи дека отстранувањето на новинарите било неопходно за нивна сопствена безбедност.

 

Во конвенционалните постапки, жалителите се жалеа според членот 6 од Конвенцијата дека немало усна расправа пред Уставниот суд и, повикувајќи се на членот 10 од Конвенцијата, за нивно задолжително отстранување од Галеријата на парламентот.

 


ПРАШАЊА ЗА ПРАВОТО

 


Во врска со усогласеноста со членот 6 од Конвенцијата.

 

(а) Применливост на членот 6 од Конвенцијата. И покрај отсуството на приговор од страна на тужената држава, Европскиот суд за човекови права ("Судот") смета дека е неопходно да се испита примената на член 6 од Конвенцијата. Домашното законодавство го призна правото на акредитирани новинари да известуваат од парламентарната галерија. Ова известување беше неопходно за апликантите да ги извршуваат своите професионални должности и да ја информираат јавноста. Во околностите, Судот сметал дека правото на пријавување од парламентарната галерија, која се однесувала на слободата на изразување на жалителите, било граѓанско право за целите на членот 6 од Конвенцијата.

 

(б) заслуги. Случајот на жалителите бил разгледан од страна на Уставниот суд кој постапувал како прв и единствен инстантен суд. Неговите заклучоци во врска со неопходноста и пропорционалноста на спорната мерка беа засновани на фактички прашања. Иако отстранувањето на апликантите од парламентарната галерија како такво не било оспорено од страна на странките, одлуката на Уставниот суд била заснована на фактите дека жалителите се оспориле и имале значење за исходот на случајот. Овие прашања не беа ниту технички ниту чисто правни. Како резултат на тоа, жалителите имаа право на усна расправа, а Уставниот суд не даде никаква причина зошто одлучил дека таквото сослушување не е потребно.

 


ОДЛУКА

 


Прекршувањето на барањата од членот 6 од Конвенцијата (едногласно) е сторено.

 

Во врска со усогласеноста со членот 10 од Конвенцијата (прашањето за почитување на правото на слобода на изразување). Случајот е предмет на задолжително отстранување на новинарите од галеријата за печатот во парламентот. Случајот вклучува повреда на барањата од член 10 од Конвенцијата.

 

Централното прашање било дали контроверзната интервенција била неопходна во едно демократско општество. Немирите во парламентарната комора и начинот на кој властите се справуваа со нив беа прашања од легитимен јавен интерес. Поради тоа, мас-медиумите имале задача да шират информации за настанот, а јавноста има право да ги прими овие информации.

 

Медиумите играат клучна улога во обезбедувањето информации за тоа како властите дејствуваат во однос на јавните демонстрации и задржување на немирите. Секој обид да се отстранат новинарите од местото на демонстрациите мора да биде строго тестиран.

 

Овој принцип беше уште поприменлив, бидејќи новинарите го остваруваа своето право да ја информираат јавноста за однесувањето на избраните претставници во парламентот и за тоа како властите се справиле со немирите што произлегоа за време на парламентарните седници.

 

За време на немирите во парламентот, жалителите биле пасивни сведоци кои едноставно ја извршиле својата работа и ги следеле настаните. Тие не претставуваат никаква закана за јавната безбедност, наредбата во парламентот или други интереси. Нивното отстранување имаше негативни последици, бидејќи веднаш ги спречило да добијат директно и директно знаење врз основа на личното искуство на настаните што се одвиваат во парламентот. Ова знаење беше важен елемент во спроведувањето на функциите на новинарите на апликантите, а јавноста не треба да биде лишена од информациите што ги дале.

 


ОДЛУКА

 


Во случај постоеше прекршување на барањата од член 10 од Конвенцијата (едногласно усвоено).

 


КОМПЕНЗАЦИЈА

 


Во примената на членот 41 од Конвенцијата. Судот му доделил по 5.000 евра на секој жалител во врска со нематеријална штета.

 

 

 

Извор на објавување: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/608-selmani-i-drugi-protiv-macedoniya .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 09 February 2017 in the case of Selmani and Others v. Macedonia (application no. 67259/14).

 

In 2014, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was also communicated to Macedonia.

 

In the case, the complaint on the forced removal of applicants who are journalists reporting on parliamentary debates, from the parliamentary press gallery to the security forces, and the lack of an oral hearing in the court's consideration of the case of removing the applicants from the parliamentary press gallery was successfully considered. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6, Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicants were journalists who covered parliamentary debates, during which riots were triggered by a group of members of parliament who forced the security forces to intervene in the situation. When the applicants refused to obey the order to clean the gallery, they were forcibly withdrawn from there. The Constitutional Court, without holding an oral hearing, found that the security service decided that the removal of journalists was necessary for their own safety.

 

In the conventional proceedings, the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that there was no oral hearing before the Constitutional Court and, referring to Article 10 of the Convention, for their compulsory removal from the Parliament Gallery.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 6 of the Convention.

 

(a) Applicability of Article 6 of the Convention. Despite the absence of objection on the part of the respondent State, the European Court of Human Rights ("the Court") considers it necessary to examine the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention. Domestic legislation recognized the right of accredited journalists to report from the parliamentary gallery. This reporting was necessary for the applicants to carry out their professional duties and inform the public. In the circumstances, the Court considered that the right to report from the parliamentary gallery, which pertained to the freedom of expression of the applicants, was civil law for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention.

 

(b) Merits. The applicants' case was examined by the Constitutional Court acting as the first and only instance court. His conclusions regarding the necessity and proportionality of the contentious measure were based on factual issues. Although the removal of applicants from the parliamentary gallery as such was not contested by the parties, the decision of the Constitutional Court was based on facts that the applicants contested and had significance for the outcome of the case. These issues were neither technical nor purely legal. Consequently, the applicants had the right to an oral hearing, and the Constitutional Court did not give any reason why he decided that such a hearing was not necessary.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.

 

Concerning compliance with Article 10 of the Convention (the question of observance of the right to freedom of expression). The case is subject to compulsory removal of journalists from the gallery for the press in the parliament. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention.

 

The central question was whether the controversial intervention was necessary in a democratic society. Riots in the parliamentary chamber and the way authorities dealt with them were issues of legitimate public interest. The mass media, therefore, had the task of disseminating information about the event, and the public had the right to receive this information.

 

The media play a key role in providing information on how the authorities act with respect to public demonstrations and containment of unrest. Any attempt to remove journalists from the site of demonstrations must be rigorously tested.

 

This principle was all the more applicable since journalists exercised their right to inform the public about the behavior of elected representatives in parliament and about how the authorities coped with the riots arising during parliamentary sessions.

 

During the riots in the parliament, the applicants were passive witnesses who simply carried out their work and watched the events. They did not represent any threat to public security, order in parliament or other interests. Their removal had negative consequences, because it immediately prevented them from receiving direct and direct knowledge based on their personal experience of the events unfolding in the parliament. This knowledge was an important element in the applicants' exercise of the functions of journalists, and the public should not be deprived of the information they provided.

 


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

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/609-selmani-and-others-v-macedonia .

 

 

İrfan Güzelel (Türkiye) davasında 07 Şubat 2017 tarihli AİHM kararı (35285/08 no'lu şikayet).

 

2008 yılında başvurucu şikayetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.

 

Durumda, sanığın şikayetleriyle ilgili şikâyette bulunmama şikayeti ile ilgili telkari önlemenin kanuna uygunluğu dikkate alınmıştır. Dava, İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunmasına İlişkin Sözleşme'nin 13. maddesinin şartlarının ihlal edildiğini içeriyordu.

 

 

 

OLAYIN DURUMU

 


Başvuran, 2008 ve 2009 yıllarında Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi tarafından yargılanmıştır. Ücret başvurucunun telefon çağrılarını dinlemeye dayanıyordu. Başvurana sunulan dava dosyası, yakalanan aramaların bir çıktısını içermekle birlikte, seçmelere yönelik adli yaptırım hakkında bilgi içermemektedir. Kendisini savunan başvurucu, yaptırımların eksikliği hakkında bir soru sormuş, ancak boşuna hiçbir şey yapmamıştır: sorusu, duruşmalarda ve mahkumiyet sırasında cevapsız bırakılmıştır.

 


HUKUK SORUNLARI

 


Sözleşmenin 8. Maddesi ile uyum konusunda. Telefon görüşmelerinin yasallığıyla ilgili şikayetler asılsızdı. Sunulan belgeler, seçmenin bir mahkeme kararı ile onaylandığını ve bu tedbirin gerekliliğinin mahkemeler tarafından değerlendirildiğini göstermektedir. Aynı zamanda, herhangi bir keyfilik ya da mantıksızlık belirtisi yoktu.

 


KARAR

 


Sözleşme'nin 8. maddesinin şartları ihlal edilmemiştir (oybirliğiyle).

 

Sözleşmenin 8. maddesi ile bağlantılı olarak Sözleşme'nin 13. maddesine uygunluk. Duruşma sırasında başvuran, seçmenin yasallığına itiraz etmeye çalışmış, ancak soruları göz ardı edilmiştir. Türk yasalarına göre, soruşturma ertelenirse Başsavcı, soruşturmanın sona ermesi ile ilgili olarak iki hafta içinde kişiyi bilgilendirmeli ve telefon dinleme sırasında alınan tüm verileri yok etmelidir. Ancak, aynı mevzuat mahkemeye getirilen davaları etkilemiyor gibi görünmüyordu. Başvuran, yargılanan yargı izinlerine dayanarak duyurulan telefon görüşmelerinin içeriğindeki çekişmeli yargılamalara itiraz edebilir. Ancak, başvurucunun iddia edilen suçlarla ilgili cezai sorumluluğunun değerlendirmesinin bir parçası olan çıktılara itiraz hakkı, telefonların kesilmesine izin verme kararlarına meydan okuma olasılığıyla ilgili ayrı bir konudur. Dava dosyası, başvuranın telefon dinlemesine izin veren mahkeme kararlarının mevcudiyeti hakkında bilgilendirildiğini göstermemektedir. Başvuranı yargılayan Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi, bu kararlara atıfta bulunmamıştır ve denetime yargı yetkisinin bulunmadığı yönündeki iddialarına cevap vermemiştir. Ayrıca, davalı Devlet Hükümeti, bu gibi durumlarda, başvuru sahiplerine gerekli onarımı sağlamak için, Sözleşme'nin 8. maddesinin kriterlerine uygun olarak telefon dinlemesini retrospektif olarak değerlendiren yetkilerin olduğunu gösteren herhangi bir örnek sunmamıştır.

 


KARAR

 


AİHS'nin 13. maddesinin gerekliliklerinin ihlali (oybirliğiyle) davada gerçekleşmiştir.

 


TAZMİNAT

 


Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. İhlalin tespiti, manevi tazminat için yeterli tazminat teşkil eder, maddi tazminat talebi reddedilmiştir.

 

 

 

Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/610-irfan-guzelel-turkiye-davas-nda .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 07 February 2017 in the case of Irfan Guzel v. Turkey (application No. 35285/08).

 

In 2008, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.

 

In the case, the complaint on the lack of reaction to the complaints of the accused about the lawfulness of the measure of wiretapping was successfully considered. The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant was tried by the Assize Court in 2008 and 2009. The charge was based on listening to the applicant's phone calls. The case file, submitted to the applicant, contained a printout of intercepted calls, but not information about the judicial sanction for audition. Defending himself, the applicant asked a question about the lack of sanctions, but to no avail: his question was left unanswered during the hearings and in the conviction.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. Complaints about the legality of his telephone calls were unfounded. The presented documents show that the audition was sanctioned by a court decision and that the need for this measure was evaluated by the courts. At the same time, there were no signs of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

 


DECISION

 


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

 

Compliance with Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention. During the trial the applicant tried to challenge the legality of the audition, but his questions were ignored. Under Turkish law, if the investigation was postponed, the Chief Public Prosecutor should inform the person within two weeks about the termination of the investigation and destroy all the data received during telephone listening. However, the same legislation did not seem to affect the cases brought to court. The applicant could challenge in the adversarial proceedings the content of telephone conversations heard on the basis of the issued judicial authorizations. But the right to challenge printouts that were part of the assessment of the applicant's criminal responsibility for alleged crimes was a separate issue in relation to the possibility of challenging decisions on authorizing the tapping of telephones. The case file does not indicate that the applicant was informed of the availability of court decisions authorizing telephone wiretapping. The Assize Court, which tried the applicant, did not refer to these decisions and did not respond to his allegations that there was no judicial authorization to audition. Moreover, the Government of the respondent State did not cite any examples demonstrating that in such cases there were powers to retrospectively evaluate telephone listening in accordance with the criteria of Article 8 of the Convention in order to provide the applicants with appropriate reparation, if necessary.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The determination of the violation constitutes sufficient fair compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage was rejected.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/611-irfan-guzel-v-turkey .