Новости от 12 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The applicant's complaint that he had been ill-treated by law enforcement officers and the lack of an effective investigation in this regard was successfully considered in the case. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2006, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant, who was 16 at the time of the events in question, complained that he was ill-treated by law enforcement officials and that there was no effective investigation into this matter.
On 24 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in its material and procedural aspects and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 50,000 euros in compensation moral harm.
The ECHR judgment of 24 October 2017 in the case of Devyatkin v. Russia (аpplication No. 40384/06).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/668-devyatkin-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants' complaint was successfully considered that their prosecution in civil claims for protection of honor for the publication of critical articles violates their right to freedom of opinion. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2002, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaint, the applicants complained that their bringing to justice in the framework of civil claims for protection of honor for the publication of critical articles on the submarine Kursk sunk on August 12, 2000, in which conflicting statements were made by the plaintiffs and their lawyer who filed claims in The European Court, on the commission of a number of official crimes, violates their right to freedom of opinion.
On 17 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (right to freedom of expression) and ordered the respondent State to pay EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the company- the applicant and EUR 2,000 to the applicant Milashina.
The ECHR judgment of 17 October 2017 in the Milashina and Novaya Gazeta v. Russia case (аpplication No. 5349/02).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/669-novaya-gazeta-and-milashina-c-russia .
The applicant's complaint that he was illegally deprived of his liberty by the authorities of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika, convicted by an illegal court and detained in inhuman conditions was successfully considered in the case. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2002, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained that he had been illegally deprived of his liberty by the authorities of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika, convicted by an illegal court and detained in inhuman conditions.
On 17 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the European Court held, by six votes to one, that in this case the authorities of the Republic of Moldova did not violate any provisions of the Convention, and the authorities of the Russian Federation violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), article 5, paragraph 1 Of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person), and obliged the Government of the Russian Federation to pay the applicant EUR 22,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation) expressed a special dissenting opinion on this case.
The ECHR judgment of 17 October 2017 in the case "Draci v. Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation" (аpplication No. 5349/02).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/670-draci-c-republic-of-moldova-and-russia .
The applicant successfully complained of the applicant's failure to comply with the Russian Federation court decision, according to which the commander of the military unit had to recount the applicant's service life, taking into account his participation in the military operation with the payment of the corresponding allowances. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2006, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained about the failure to comply with the decision of the Russian Federation court, according to which the commander of the military unit had to recalculate the applicant's service life, taking into account his participation in the military operation with payment of the corresponding surcharges.
On 17 October 2017, on the application lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 9,852 euros in just compensation.
The ECHR judgment of 17 October 2017 in the case of Gachma v. Russia (аpplication No. 9589/06).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/671-gachma-c-russia .
The applicant successfully complained of the fact that he was illegally deprived of his liberty by the authorities of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika in 1999, convicted by an illegal court, ill-treated by law enforcement officers and detained in inhuman conditions. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2001, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained that he had been illegally deprived of his liberty by the authorities of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika in 1999, convicted by an illegal court, ill-treated by law enforcement officers and detained in inhuman conditions.
On 17 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that the authorities of the Republic of Moldova violated the requirements of article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) at one of the time periods considered. The Court also also held, by six votes to one, that in the present case the Government violated the same provisions of the Convention for a different period of time and ordered the authorities of the Republic of Moldova to pay the applicant 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the authorities of the Russian Federation 9,000 Euro. Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation) expressed a special dissenting opinion on this case.
The ECHR judgment of 17 October 2017 on the case of Braga v. Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation (аpplication No. 76957/01).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/672-braga-c-republic-of-moldova-and-russia .
The applicant's complaint that he was not provided with adequate medical care during his stay in the remand center and the place of serving the sentence, as well as the conditions of detention, was successfully considered in the case. A violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights was committed in the case.
In 2015, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant, suffering from skin cancer, who was identified by him at the time of placement in the remand center, complained that he had not received adequate medical care during his stay in the remand center and the place of serving the sentence, as well as the conditions of detention .
On 17 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) with regard to the conditions of detention at the place of serving the sentence, as well as the provision of medical care in the remand center, not allowing a violation in the part of providing medical assistance at the place of serving the sentence, and obliged the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 17 October 2017 in the case "Amirov v. Russia" (аpplication No. 56220/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/673-amirov-c-russia .
The applicant successfully complained of the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation in his favor. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In 2004, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained about non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation rendered in his favor.
On 17 October 2017, on the application lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7 800 as just satisfaction.
The ECHR judgment of 17 October 2017 in the case "Titov v. Russia" (аpplication No. 35254/04).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/674-titov-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint that the authorities of the Russian Federation did not fulfill their positive obligation due to the lack of an adequate security system at the airport and the fact that there was no effective investigation into the performance of duties by airport officers and law enforcement agencies. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2014, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In her complaint, the applicant, who was injured in the bombing at Domodedovo airport on 24 January 2011, complained that the authorities of the Russian Federation had not fulfilled their positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention (the right to life) due to the lack of an adequate security system at the airport and that there was no effective investigation into the performance of duties by airport officials and law enforcement agencies.
On 17 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government had not committed a violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (the right to life) in its material aspect, but had violated the requirement of this article in the procedural aspect and ordered the State - to pay the applicant 5,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 17 October 2017 in the Krivolutskaya v. Russia case (аpplication No. 28008/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/675-krivolutskaya-c-russia .
In the case, the applicant's complaint was successfully considered that he had not been provided with adequate medical care. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2016, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant, suffering from a number of diseases, complained that he was not provided with proper medical care both during the period of his detention in the remand center and at the place of serving his sentence.
On 17 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government of the Russian Federation, in violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), in the light of the applicant's unjustified refusals to treatment, violated the requirement of Article 34 of the Convention (right of submission individual complaint), and decided that the fact of establishing a violation of the Convention would in itself be sufficient compensation.
The ECHR judgment of 17 October 2017 in the case "Khuseynov v. Russia" (аpplication No. 1647/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/676-khuseynov-c-russia .
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 case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In 2006, 2010 and 2011, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications 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 argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 12 October 2017, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 27,700 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts of up to 6 940 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case "Fedorenko and Others v. Russia" (аpplications N 522/06, 12975/06, 18927/06, 38818/06, 42364/10 and 42379 / 11).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/677-fedorenko-and-others-c-russia .