Новости от 14 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Az EJEB 2016. december 13-i ítélete a Belane Nagy kontra Magyarország ügyben (53080/13 számú kérelmezői).
2013-ban a kérelmezőt segítették a panasz előkészítésében. Ezt követően a panaszt közölték Magyarországgal.
Ebben az esetben sikeresen vették figyelembe a nyugdíjjuttatások elvesztéséről szóló panaszt az újonnan bevezetett kritériumok alapján a jogok megszerzéséhez. Abban az esetben sérti a jegyzőkönyv 1. cikke N1 az Emberi jogok és alapvető szabadságok.
Az ügy körülményei
2001-ben a felperes rokkantsági nyugdíjra neveztek ki, ami elmaradt, 2010-ben, miután a rokkantság foka csökkent az alkalmazás egy módszer. Az elkövetkező években új vizsgálatokat végzett, és végül a megfelelő képzettségi szintre került. Azonban az új jogszabály lépett hatályba 2012-ben bevezetett további kritériumokat, hogy megfeleljen a követelményeknek, amelyek a kérelmező nem felel meg, és hogy egyértelműen a szociális biztosítás időtartamát. Ennek következtében, bár a rokkantság foka, más esetekben adna neki a jogot, hogy megkapja a rokkantsági ellátások keretében az új rendszer, az igények elutasították. A kérelmező kifogásolta, hogy ő elvesztette megélhetése biztosított csak a rokkantsági ellátások, mint a jogszabályi változások nyomán, a hatalmat távollétében az igazság, annak ellenére, hogy nem volt javulás az egészségét. I ítéletében február 10-i 2015 Udvari Kamara által talált négy szavazattal „A” három ellen „ellen”, hogy az ügy megsértése jegyzőkönyv 1. cikke N1 az egyezményt. Különösen az Európai tanács a Bíróság megállapította, hogy a felperes teljesen megfosztott ellátás kapcsán a hirtelen és kiszámíthatatlan változások a feltételeit annak, hogy hozzáférést rokkantsági ellátások. Június 1, 2015, kérésére az alperes állam hatóságai az ügyet a nagytanács az Európai Bíróság.
Törvénykérdések
Ami az egyezmény 1. sz. Jegyzőkönyvének 1. cikkével való összhangot illeti. a) A panasz alkalmazhatósága. Bizonyos körülmények között a tulajdon megszerzésének jogszerű elvárásai az egyezmény 1. jegyzőkönyvének 1. cikkével védhetők. Jogos elvárás kell egy konkrétabb jellegű, mint a puszta remény, és kell alapulnia jogszabály vagy jogi aktus, mint egy bírósági határozat. Ugyanakkor az ingatlan érdeklődés, elismert hazai joggal összhangban, annak ellenére, hogy vissza lehet vonni bizonyos körülmények között lehet az ingatlan.
A társadalombiztosítási jogszabályokban bekövetkezett változások reagálhatnak a társadalmi változásokra és a társadalmi segítségre szoruló emberek kategóriáira vonatkozó nézetek megváltoztatására. Ha a hazai jogszabályi környezet számára nyújtott különösebb előnyök formájában vagy nyugdíj megváltozott, és az érintett személy a jövőben nem teljesen felel meg őket változások miatt ilyen körülmények gondos mérlegelése az egyes az eset körülményeire, különösen a természet a változtatásokat a követelmények ellenőrzése kellően meghatározott anyagi tulajdonság a belső jognak megfelelően.
A kérelmező teljesítette az összes olyan feltételt, amely a fogyatékkal élők nyugdíjjogosultságának közel 10 évig történő megszerzéséhez való joga volt. A döntés, hogy jelöljön ki neki, hogy a rokkantsági nyugdíj rendelkezései alapján az alkalmazandó jogszabály, amely alapját képezte a kezdeti jogszabály, ezért lehet tekinteni, mint ami a meglévő ingatlan. Ebben az időszakban, tudott alapján e törvény, hogy támogassa a jogos elvárás, hogy továbbra is részesül rokkantsági ellátások, ha a fogyatékosság tartjuk az előírt szintet.
A kérdés az volt, hogy volt még a kérelmező hatálybalépése új szabályozás 2012-ben, a jogos elvárás megszerzésének rokkantsági ellátások. A változás a jogszabály kifejezetten létre, hogy egy bizonyos kategóriájába biztosítottak, köztük a felperes, amely feltétel nem volt előrelátható idején tulajdonítható potenciális járulékfizetési időszak, és hogy nem tud megfelelni után hatálybalépése az új jogszabály. Közötti időszakban a megszüntetését kifizetése a kérelmező rokkantsági nyugdíj 2010-ben és az új követelmények a jogalkotó által a járulékok 2012-ben a felperes nem csak továbbra is részt vesz a társadalombiztosítási rendszer, hanem továbbra is megfelelnek a szükséges követelményeknek a szolgálati idő megszerzése rokkantsági ellátások. Következésképpen, nyugdíj nélkül, az Egyezmény 1. sz. Jegyzőkönyvének 1. cikke alá tartozó jogos bizalom továbbra is fennállt. Valószínűleg, ez úgy értendő, hogy a fogyatékosügyi törvény N CXCI 2011. hozott 2012-ben, állított további kritériumokat a pályázók számára. Különösen helyett követelményének eltöltött szereplő korábbi törvény, az érintettek kell egy ötéves időszak benyújtását megelőző alkalmazás, legalább 1 095 nappal a társadalombiztosítás fedezi. Azok, akik nem felelnek meg ennek a követelménynek, lehetne még jobb, ha egész karrierjük megtörni a társadalmi befogadás nem haladja meg a 30 napot, vagy ha kaptak rokkantsági nyugdíjban vagy rehabilitációs járadékban december 31, 2011, amely nem terjed ki a nélkülözés hely 2010-et a kérelmezőnek.
A felperesnek a társadalombiztosítási rendszer költségén járó ellátásokra való jogosultságát a nyugdíjjogosultságának csökkenéséhez vezetett. Így az 1. sz. Jegyzőkönyv 1. cikke alkalmazandó volt a jelen ügyre.
b) Az egyezmény 1. jegyzőkönyvének 1. cikkelyének való megfelelés. Az Európai Bíróság elismerte, hogy a beavatkozás a fogyatékossággal összefüggő társadalombiztosítási kifizetések rendszerének racionalizálásával eleget tett a törvényesség követelményének és a közérdeknek a közpénzek védelmére irányuló igényét. Az 1. jegyzőkönyv 1. cikke előírja, hogy az esetleges beavatkozás ésszerűen arányos az elérni kívánt céllal. A szükséges méltányos egyensúlyt nem állapítják meg, ha az egyén egyéni és túlzott terhet visel. A kérelmezőt teljes mértékben megfosztották a jogaitól, és nem a juttatások arányos csökkentéséért. Nem volt más létfontosságú jövedelme a létezéshez, és nehézségei voltak a jövedelmező foglalkoztatás megszerzésében, hivatkozva a fogyatékkal élő személyek veszélyeztetett csoportjára. A vitatott intézkedés, bár ez volt a célja a közpénzek védelme és ésszerűsítése társadalombiztosítási rendszerek kapcsán fogyatékosság elfogadása volt szabályozás, amely az adott körülmények között nem igazságos egyensúlyt az egymással versengő érdekek. Ezek a megfontolások nem igazolhatják jogalkotás visszaható hatályú és hiányában átmeneti intézkedéseket, az adott konkrét helyzetben, járó nélkülözés a felperes jogos elvárás, hogy kaphat rokkantsági ellátások. A kérelmező jogaival való ilyen alapvető beavatkozás nem állt fenn a versengő érdekek közötti megfelelő egyensúly fenntartása mellett. Az elérni kívánt cél és az alkalmazott eszközök arányossága között nem volt megfelelő kapcsolat. Az ellenérdekű állam kormányának széles mérlegelési jogkörének ellenére a felperesnek túlzottan egyedi terhet kellett viselnie.
uralkodó
Abban az esetben, ha megsértették az egyezmény 1. jegyzőkönyvének 1. cikkében foglalt követelményeket (kilenc szavazattal elfogadták "a", nyolc "ellen").
kártérítés
Az Egyezmény 41. cikkének alkalmazása során. A Törvényszék a felperesnek 5000 eurót ítélt meg nem vagyoni kárra és 10 000 eurót anyagi kárra. Lásd ítéletet a nagytanács az Európai Bíróság „Kopecky Szlovákia ellen” (Kopecky v. Szlovákia) 2004. szeptember 28-a panasz N 44912/98, döntés a nagytanács az Európai Bíróság a „verem, és a másik az Egyesült Királyság ellen” (STEC és mások v. Egyesült Királyság), 2005. július 6-a panaszt N 65731/01 és 65900/01, ítélet az Európai Bíróság „Kjartan Ausmundson Izland ellen” (Kjartan Asmundsson v. Iceland) 2004. október 12-a panasz N 60669/00. Sz., Klein kontra Ausztria ügyben 2011. március 3-án hozott ítélet, 57028/00 sz., Emberi Jogok Európai Bírósága A Moskal kontra Lengyelország ügyben 2009. szeptember 15-én benyújtott, 10373/05 sz. Panasz.
Kiadványforrás: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/678-belane-nagy-kontra-magyarorszag .
ECHR judgment of 13 December 2016 in the case of Belane Nagy v. Hungary (aplication No. 53080/13).
In 2013 the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the aplication. Subsequently, the aplication was communicated to Hungary.
In the case, a complaint was successfully considered on the loss of pension benefits in connection with the newly introduced criteria for obtaining rights to them. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The circumstances of the case
In 2001, the applicant was awarded a disability pension, which was canceled in 2010 after her incapacity for work was reduced as a result of a different methodology. In subsequent years, she underwent new examinations and was eventually assigned to the appropriate qualification level. However, the new legislation, which entered into force in 2012, introduced additional criteria to meet the established requirements, which the applicant did not meet and which related to the duration of the coverage of social insurance. As a consequence, although her degree of disability in other cases would have given her the right to receive a disability benefit under the new system, her claims were rejected. The applicant complained that she had lost her livelihood, guaranteed only with a disability allowance, as a result of legislative changes applied by the authorities in the absence of justice, despite the fact that there was no improvement in her health. In the judgment of 10 February 2015, the Chamber of the European Court established by four votes "for" against three "against" that the case involved a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In particular, the Chamber of the European Court stated that the applicant was completely deprived of care due to a sharp and unpredictable change in the conditions for her access to disability benefits. On June 1, 2015, at the request of the Government of the respondent State, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court.
Law issues
Concerning compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. (a) Applicability of the complaint. Under certain circumstances, the lawful expectation of obtaining property can be protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. A legitimate expectation must have a more concrete nature than simple hope, and should be based on a legal norm or legal act, such as a judicial decision. At the same time, property interest, recognized in accordance with domestic law, even if it can be annulled under certain circumstances, may constitute property.
Changes in social security legislation can be taken as a reaction to public changes and development of views on the categories of people in need of social assistance. If the domestic legal conditions for granting any specific form of benefits or pensions change and the interested person does not fully answer them in connection with the changes in such conditions, careful consideration of the individual circumstances of the case, in particular, the nature of the changes in the claim, is required to verify the existence of a sufficiently established material property interest in accordance with domestic law.
The applicant complied with all the conditions that gave her the right to receive a disability pension for almost 10 years. The decision to grant her a disability pension on the basis of the provisions of the applicable instrument that formed the basis for the initial grant of the right, therefore, can be considered as representing the existing property. Throughout this period, she could, on the basis of this act, maintain a legitimate expectation of continuing to receive disability payments if her disability was maintained at the required level.
The question was whether the applicant still had a legitimate expectation of receiving a disability benefit when the new legislation came into force in 2012. However, The amendment to the legislation specifically established a condition for certain categories of insured persons, including the applicant, that was not predictable during the relevant potential contribution period and which they could not satisfy after the entry into force of the new legislation. During the period between the termination of the applicant's disability pension in 2010 and the introduction by the legislator of a new claim for contributions in 2012, the applicant not only continued to be a part of the social security system, but also continued to meet the required length of service requirements for receiving disability benefits. Consequently, without receiving a pension, she continued to have a legitimate expectation covered by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Probably, it is meant that the Disability Act N CXCI of 2011, which was put into effect in 2012, established additional criteria for applicants. In particular, instead of the requirement for seniority in the previous legislation, interested persons were required to have at least 1,095 days covered by social security for a five-year period preceding the submission of the application. Those who did not meet this requirement could be granted rights if throughout their careers the break in social coverage did not exceed 30 days or if they received a disability pension or rehabilitation benefit as of December 31, 2011, which did not apply to a pension deprived of 2010 to the applicant.
The applicant's right to receive benefits at the expense of this social insurance system was violated in a way that led to a decrease in her pension rights. Thus, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable to the present case.
(b) Compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The European Court recognized that the interference met the requirement of legality and pursued public interest in protecting public funds by rationalizing the system of social insurance payments in connection with disability. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 requires that any interference be reasonably proportionate to the objective pursued. The necessary fair balance will not be established if the individual carries an individual and excessive burden. The applicant was fully deprived of her rights, and not to a proportional reduction of her benefits. She had no other significant income for existence and had difficulty in obtaining profitable employment, referring to a vulnerable group of disabled people. The impugned measure, although aimed at protecting public funds and rationalizing the system of social insurance payments in connection with disability, consisted in the adoption of legislation, which under the circumstances did not establish a fair balance between competing interests. Such considerations could not justify lawmaking with a retrospective effect and in the absence of transitional measures appropriate to the specific situation that entailed the deprivation of the applicant's legitimate expectation that she could receive disability benefits. Such a fundamental interference with the applicant's rights was not combined with maintaining a fair balance between competing interests. There was no reasonable relationship between the proportionality between the pursued goal and the means employed. Despite the broad margin of appreciation of the Government of the respondent State, the applicant had to bear an excessive individual burden.
Resolution
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (adopted by nine votes "for" with eight "against").
Compensation
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. See the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court in the case Kopecky v. Slovakia of 28 September 2004, aplication no. 44912/98, Stec and the Grand Court of the European Court of Human Rights Others v. United Kingdom) of 6 July 2005, aplication s Nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, Kjartan Asmundsson v. Iceland, judgment of 12 October 2004, aplication No. 60669/00, Klein v. Austria, judgment of 3 March 2011, application no. 57028/00, European Court of Human Rights The case against Moskal v. Poland, dated September 15, 2009, aplication No. 10373/05.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/679-belane-nagy-v-hungary .
Kutlu ve Diğerleri / Türkiye davasında 13 Aralık 2016 tarihli AİHM kararı (şikayet no. 51891/11).
2011 yılında, başvuranlar şikâyetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.
Böyle bir durumda, yakındaki bir barajın inşasıyla bağlantılı olarak maddi ve hukuki kısıtlamalar yüklenen arazi için tam kamulaştırma bedeli yerine kısmi tazminat ödenmesi için bir şikayet başarılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Dava, İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunması Sözleşmesi'nin 1 No'lu Protokolünün 1. maddesinin şartlarının ihlal edildiğini içeriyordu.
Davanın şartları
Başvuranlar, barajın inşa edildiği birkaç arsa arazisine sahipti. Baraj etrafındaki maksimum koruma bölgesinde iki alan bulunmuş ve üçüncüsü de yakın koruma bölgesinde yer almıştır.
Bu mahalle ve yasal (inşaat işleri ve tarımsal faaliyetlere yönelik kısıtlamalar yasaklanması) (telefon ve elektrik şebekeleri, vs. ulaşılamadığı için, yıkım) bir sınırlama sayısını, hem fiziksel neden oldu.
Başvuranlar, verilen zararla ilgili olarak tazminat alabilmek için, arazilerinin kamulaştırılmasını talep ederek mahkemeye çeşitli eylemlerde bulundular. Yerel mahkemeler kamulaştırma konusunda karar almayı reddetmiş, ancak başvuranlara maddi tazminat ödenmesine karar vermiştir.
Hukuk sorunları
Sözleşmeye Ek 1 No'lu Protokol'ün 1. maddesiyle uyum konusunda. (a) N 84/72 ve 84/76 alanları. sitelerini kullanarak çok sıkı fiziksel ve yasal kısıtlamalar etkilenmiştir: siteler yalnızca motorsuz damarları ulaşılabilir üzerine, onlar inşaat izin verilmez ve tarımsal faaliyetler yasaklandı.
Baraj yakınındaki arazi “kullanılamaz” hale gelirse, kamulaştırma için öngörülen kanun. Yasanın bahsettiği içtüzük, içme suyu rezervi etrafındaki azami koruma bölgesinde yer alan alanların “kamulaştırmaya tabi” olduğunu tespit etmiştir. fiil "Konuyla" yerine "tabi olabilir" kullanımı göz önüne alındığında, bu metin kamulaştırma ve daha düşük bir tazminat seviyesinin ödenmesi arasında seçme özgürlüğü yoktu herhangi takdir yetkisi takdir yetkisi, vermez. Buna karşılık, by-hukuk, yani arazi satın ve böylece maksimum koruma, çekilme gerçek hakkının bölgesinde yer arazi sahipleri garanti geçmesini zorunlu, herhangi takdir yetkisinin yetkilileri mahrum "doğru kamulaştırma tabi."
İçtüzükte öngörülen bu reddetme hakkı, Sözleşme'nin 1 No'lu Protokolünün 1. maddesinin amaçları doğrultusunda bir “mülkiyet hakkı” idi. Kamulaştırma hakkı ve arazi mülkiyetinin değerine karşılık gelen tazminat ödemeleri "mülkiyet" olarak temsil edilir. Arazi kullanımını reddetmek ve mülk kullanımındaki kısıtlamalardan kaynaklanan tazminat ödemelerini yapmayı tercih eden makamlar, Türk hukukunun sağladığı ve Sözleşme ile korunan mülkiyet hakkını ihlal ettiler.
Bu tür bir ihlal, 1 sayılı Protokolün 1. maddesinin gereklilikleriyle uyumlu olarak kabul edilemez, sadece yasal bir dayanağı olmadığı düşüncesiyle değil, aynı zamanda gerçek gerekçesinin mevcut olmadığı da dikkate alınmamıştır. Yurtiçi mahkemeler yerine kamulaştırma kararı ve arazinin değerine karşılık gelen ödenecek bir tazminat tarafından reddedilmesi başvuru sahibinin hakkını sağlama, arazinin değerinde azalmaya tekabül tazminat atanmasına ilişkin kararlarının yetersiz motivasyon sonuçlanmıştır. Bu bağlamda, ülke mahkemelerinin söz konusu yönetmelikle ilgili herhangi bir pozisyon oluşturmadığını belirtmek gerekir. Türk makamları da böyle bir müdahale için ikna edici bir neden belirtmemişlerdir.
egemen
Söz konusu davada, Sözleşmenin 1 No'lu Protokolünün 1. maddesinin şartlarının ihlali söz konusuydu (“aleyhte” - “aleyhte” - “oy” olarak kabul edildi).
(b) Site N 81/44. Yakındaki bir koruma bölgesinde bulunan alan, rezervuardaki suyun kalitesini korumak için tasarlanmış bir dizi kısıtlamaya tabi tutulmuştur. Yani, herhangi bir inşaat yasaklandı. Ayrıca, tarımsal faaliyetlere ancak ilgili bakanlığın onayından sonra izin verilmiş ve kimyasal gübre ya da diğer ürünlerin kullanılmasını reddetmiştir. İç tüzük, bu siteye göre “kamulaştırma hakkını” sağlamadı. Yasa, "sömürüye elverişsiz" olma koşullarının yerine getirilmesiyle, barajın yakınında bulunan arazinin kamulaştırma şartını birbirine bağladı. Ancak, ülke mahkemeleri bu malın bu hükmün anlamında sömürüye uygun olmadığı sonucuna varmamışlardır. Dolayısıyla, mevcut davada başvuranların bu madde temelinde kamulaştırma hakkına sahip olduğu sonucuna varılamaz. Yönetmeliğe gelince, yakındaki koruma bölgesinde araziyi etkileyen kısıtlamaların araziyi otomatik olarak sömürüye uygun hale getirmediğini ve başka türlü kamulaştırma gerektirmediğini tespit etmemiştir. Buna göre, yokluğunda, arasında adil denge sağlamak amacıyla kabul edilebilir olduğu ülkede tanınan, "sağa kamulaştırmaya konu olduğu" ve Sözleşmenin ve bu nedenle "mülkiyet", yasal sınırlamalara kaynaklanan hasarlara karşı gelen tazminat ödenmesi ile korunan hukuk mülkiyet ilgisini temsil edebilir başvuranların ve toplumun hakları.
mahkeme tarafından atanan bilirkişi nedeniyle% 40 kullanımına ilişkin kısıtlamalar arsa değerindeki azalmayı tahmin. Bununla birlikte, mahkeme dikkate alınması gereken kriterler tek referansla mülkiyet değerinin% 25 tutarında bir tazminat atandı. Bu neden ve nasıl bu kriterlerinin uygulanması maliyet azaltma% 25 seviyesine sınırlı olmasından yol açacak Mahkeme işaret etmediğini göz önüne alındığında, yeterli motivasyon olarak kabul edilemedi.
Tazminatın belirlenme şekli, Mahkemenin maruz kaldığı zararla makul bir şekilde ilgili olduğu sonucuna varmasına izin vermemiştir.
Böylece orada yeterince onların kararı dayandığı gerekçeleri ifade etmeye davacı tarafından ileri sürülen her argüman ayrıntılı bir cevap için gerek ama mahkemelerin görevi olduğunu kurbanı temel gereksinimleri dikkatli ve tam bir muayene bekleyebilirsiniz düşündürmektedir. Sonuç olarak, genel çıkarlar ve başvuranların hakları gereksinimleri korunması arasındaki gerekli adil denge ulaşıldı sonucunu desteklemek için hiçbir şey yoktur.
egemen
Dava, 1 No'lu Protokol'ün 1. maddesinin (oybirliğiyle kabul edilen) gerekliliklerinin ihlal edildiğini içeriyordu.
tazminat
Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. Kortu manevi zarar ile ilgili olarak her bir başvuru için ortak başvuru 1500 Euro maddi zarara ilişkin olarak 455.000 Euro verdi.
Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/680-kutlu-ve-digerleri-turkiye .
ECHR judgment of 13 December 2016 in the case of Kutlu and Others v. Turkey (application no. 51891/11).
In 2011, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.
In the case, a complaint was successfully considered for payment of partial compensation instead of the full expropriation cost for land burdened with material and legal restrictions in connection with the construction of a nearby dam. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The circumstances of the case
The applicants were the owners of several plots of land near which the dam was built. Two sites were located in the zone of maximum protection around the dam, and the third was in the nearby protection zone.
This neighborhood entailed a number of restrictions, both physical (difficult access, destruction of telephone and electrical networks and the like), and legal (prohibition of construction work and restrictions on agricultural activities).
In order to receive compensation in connection with the damage caused, the applicants brought several actions to the court, asking for the expropriation of their land. The domestic courts refused to take decisions on expropriation, but awarded the applicants financial compensation.
Law issues
Concerning compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. (a) Areas N 84/72 and 84/76. The use of the plots was affected by extremely strict physical and legal restrictions: the plots could only be reached by non-motorized vessels, they were not allowed to build and agricultural activities were banned.
The law provided for expropriation, if the land near the dam became "unusable". The bylaw, to which the law referred, established that the areas located in the maximum protection zone around the drinking water reserve were "subject to expropriation". Given the use of the verb "to be", and not "could be subject to", this text did not vest any discretionary discretion to the authorities who did not have the freedom to choose between expropriation and payment of a lower level of compensation. On the contrary, the subordinate act deprived the authorities of any discretionary powers, obliging them to acquire land, and thereby guaranteed to the owners of the plots located in the zone of maximum protection the real right of refusal, that is "the right to be expropriated".
This right of refusal, provided for in the domestic by-law, was a "property interest" for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The right to be expropriated and receive compensation payments corresponding to the value of land plots represented "property". Refusing to expropriate land and preferring to pay compensation for damage resulting from restrictions on the use of property, the authorities violated the property interest provided by Turkish law and protected by the Convention.
Such a violation could not be regarded as compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, not only considering that it had no legal basis, but also that its real justification was not available. The domestic courts gave insufficient reasons for their decisions to award compensation, corresponding to the reduction of the value of the land, instead of ensuring the applicant's right to refusal by deciding on expropriation and awarding compensation corresponding to the value of the land. In this regard, it should be noted that the country's courts did not formulate any position regarding the aforementioned by-law. The Turkish authorities also did not specify a convincing reason for such an intervention.
Resolution
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (adopted by six votes "for" at one - "against").
(b) Site N 81/44. The site, which was located in a nearby protection zone, was subject to a number of restrictions designed to protect the quality of water in the reservoir. So, on it was prohibited any construction. In addition, agricultural activities were allowed only after the approval of the relevant ministry and subject to refusal to use chemical fertilizers or other products. The domestic by-law did not provide for "the right to be expropriated" with respect to this site. The law linked the requirement to expropriate land located near the dam, with the fulfillment of the condition of their "unfit for exploitation". However, the country's courts did not come to the conclusion that this property became unfit for exploitation in the meaning of this provision. Thus, it can not be concluded that in the present case the applicants had the right to be expropriated on the basis of this article. As for the by-law, he did not establish that restrictions affecting land in the nearby protection zone automatically made the land unsuitable for exploitation, and did not otherwise require expropriation. Accordingly, in the absence of the "right to be expropriated", recognized in the country's legislation and capable of representing a property interest protected by the Convention, and therefore "property", payment of compensation corresponding to the damage resulting from legislative restrictions was acceptable for the purpose of achieving a fair balance between rights of applicants and society.
The expert appointed by the court estimated the decrease in the value of the land as a result of restrictions on its use in 40%. Nevertheless, the court awarded compensation in the amount of 25% of the value of the property with only a reference to the criteria that must be taken into account. This could not be considered sufficient motivation, given that the court did not indicate why and how the application of these criteria should have meant that the reduction in value was limited to 25%.
The way in which compensation was determined did not allow the Court to conclude that it was reasonably related to the damage suffered.
At the same time, there is no need for a detailed answer to every argument put forward by the plaintiff, but it is the duty of the courts to adequately formulate the reasons on which their decisions are based, assuming that the victim can expect a careful and thorough examination of his basic requirements. As a result, nothing confirmed the conclusion that the necessary fair balance between the general interest and the requirements for the protection of the applicants' rights was achieved.
Resolution
The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (unanimously adopted).
Compensation
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded EUR 455,000 in respect of pecuniary damage jointly to all applicants and EUR 1,500 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/681-kutlu-and-others-v-turkey .
Решение на ЕСПЧ от 08 декември 2016 г. по дела L.D. и P.K. (L.D. и P.K.) срещу България (жалбите N 7949/11 и 45522/13).
През 2011 и 2013 г. жалбоподателите бяха подпомогнати при подготовката на жалби. Впоследствие жалбите бяха консолидирани и съобщени на България.
В случая се разглежда успешно жалба относно липсата на възможност за човек, който твърди, че е признат за биологичен баща, да оспори бащинството му по отношение на дете, което вече е признато за друг човек. В случая е налице нарушение на изискванията на член 8 от Конвенцията за защита на правата на човека и основните свободи.
ОБСТОЯТЕЛСТВА ПО ДЕЛОТО
Заявителите във всеки от двата случая твърдят (с вероятност от 99,99% по анализа на ДНК в един случай), че те са биологични бащи на децата, за които бащинство вече признати от друг човек. Вътрешното законодателство не позволява оспорването на бащинството от лице или признаването на дете като негова. Ограничаване на показанието на връзката между правната бащата и детето, националните съдилища са отхвърлили заявителя да образува съдебно производство.
Един от кандидатите, които се подозира, че там е бил трафикът на хора (майка по-късно призна, че клиниката, гледане на бременността си, изравни с няколко, които искаха да осиновят дете), убедени прокурора да започне съдебно производство в компетентния съд. Без да посочва причини, прокурорът прекратява производството, след което жалбоподателят напразно се опитва да го възобнови.
ПРОБЛЕМИ НА ЗАКОНА
По отношение на спазването на член 8 от Конвенцията. През 2012 г. Палатата извърши сравнително правно проучване показва, че голяма част от държави приемам подаване на искове за бащинство, но в това отношение няма консенсус. С оглед на това наблюдение и други релевантни фактори органите на ответната държава имаха широка свобода на преценка. При все това, разглеждането на настоящото дело принуди Съда да заключи, че те надхвърлят тези граници.
В конкретния случай по отношение на различните разпоредби на Семейния кодекс, националните съдилища отхвърлят претенциите на жалбоподателите поради липса на право на обжалване пред съда. Законодателната забрана за оспорване на регистрирано бащинство не изглежда да позволява изключения от българското законодателство. Той трябва да бъде от страната на намерението на законодателя, за да се гарантира стабилността на семейните отношения се даде приоритет на вече установените правни отношения, и да не допуска искове за предполагаеми биологични бащи.
Според Съда, въпреки че, разбира се, от страна на местните власти, би било разумно да се вземе предвид факта, че детето вече е имал утвърдена връзка на родител и дете, ние също трябва да се вземат под внимание други фактори, като конкретните обстоятелства по всяко дело, и по-специално, положението различни участници в производството: детето, майката, вторият баща и предполагаемият биологичен баща. Независимо от това, националните съдилища не са взели предвид тези обстоятелства.
По отношение на всички други средства за правна защита на жалбоподателите съгласно законите на България, поради следните причини са принудени Съда до заключението, че те не са били ефективни при настъпили ситуации.
а) Възможност за пряко действие в съответствие с член 8 от Конвенцията. Въпреки че последното решение на Върховния апелативен съд изглежда предлага такава възможност, ответното правителство не даде примери за подобни действия. Жалбата, подадена от първия жалбоподател на тази основа, всъщност е обявена за недопустима за разглеждане.
б) възможността за участие на прокурора или на службите за социална закрила. Национално законодателство, което позволява на прокуратурата или на териториален разделянето на производството на социални услуги институт по бащинство, които биха могли да доведат до декларация, че признаването на бащинство е невалиден, ако тя не отговаря на генетичните отношения (член 66, параграф 5 от Семейния кодекс). По този начин лице, което твърди, че е биологичен баща, може да изтъкне искането си в гореспоменатите органи и да ги поиска да започнат производство. Този метод, който очевидно е бил използван на практика, обаче има следните ограничения:
(i) нито Семейният кодекс, нито друг законодателен акт не посочват ситуацията, в която властите следва да предприемат такава инициатива. От вътрешното съдебната практика и обясненията, предоставени от Агенцията за социално осигуряване, от това следва, че такива производството се образува, ако има съмнение, че признаването е бил използван за заобикаляне на законодателството за осиновяване, или има заплаха за детето;
(ii) това искане не е пряко достъпно за жалбоподателите, тъй като подаването му е било по преценка на онези публични органи, които биха могли да го използват в конкретен случай;
(iii) няма законово задължение за изслушване на такъв кандидат (въпреки че на практика това е било направено в контекста на вътрешните изследвания);
(iv) отказът да се образува производство или последващото му прекратяване не може да бъде обжалван пред съда. И в двата случая съответният орган не е бил длъжен да мотивира своето решение;
v) за да реши дали да започне производство, съответните органи не са били задължени да разглеждат различните заинтересовани интереси. Докато те изглежда да се вземат предвид най-добрия интерес на детето, особено ако е свързано с риск за тяхното здраве или благосъстояние, или да осигури спазването на приемането на законодателство, се оказва, че тези интереси са в сравнение с другите засегнати интереси, особено на интересите на биологичният баща;
(VI) целта на такова действие не е всъщност привлече правна бащинство на биологичен баща, но само премахване на родител и дете правоотношението, възникнало в резултат на признаване. Следователно подобно производство изглежда се ограничава до извънредни ситуации по отношение на спазването на закона или заплаха за детето, а не в конфликта за установяване на бащинство.
в) Възможността за признаване на бащинството преди раждането. Законът позволява признаването на бащинството на детето преди раждането, от момента на зачеването. Това обаче не винаги е било възможно, особено ако бащата не е бил информиран за бременността и във всеки случай това не е обичайна практика в България.
Дори в случай на ранно признаване, майката имаше възможност да го направи неефективна, като подаде възражение. Ако майката се съгласи да признанието на бащинство с друг мъж преди човекът, който нарича себе си баща ми, който направи първата отчета за признаване, могат да съдят за бащинство, последният, дори и ако той е биологичният баща, той щеше да е в същото положение, както на кандидатите в конкретния случай, без възможността да се докаже неговата бащинство.
Следователно възможността за признаване на бащинството преди раждането не може да се счита за ефективно средство за установяване на бащинство при отсъствие на съгласието на майката.
При тези обстоятелства Европейският съд не може да обвини ищците, че не са издали декларация за бащинство преди тяхното раждане. И в двата случая жалбоподателите действително предприемат стъпки, за да установят своето бащинство, веднага щом научат за раждането на деца.
От гореизложеното може да се заключи, че жалбоподателите не са имали ефективна възможност да оспорят правните взаимоотношения между родителя и детето, установени с тяхното признаване, или да установят пряко тяхното бащинство. Съответно тяхното право на зачитане на личния им живот е нарушено.
РЕШЕНИЕ
Проведено е нарушение на изискванията на член 8 от Конвенцията (единодушно).
КОМПЕНСАЦИЯ
При прилагането на член 41 от Конвенцията. Съдът присъди на всеки жалбоподател 6 000 евро (EUR) за неимуществени вреди. Вижте също Rozanski срещу Полша, решение от 18 май 2006 г., жалба № 55339/00.
Източник на публикация: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/682-l-d-and-p-k-sreschu-bulgaria .
ECHR judgment of 08 December 2016 in the case of L.D. and P.K. (L.D. and P.K.) v. Bulgaria (applications N 7949/11 and 45522/13).
In 2011 and 2013, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, applications were consolidated and communicated to Bulgaria.
In the case, a complaint was successfully considered on the lack of possibility for a man claiming to be recognized as a biological father, to challenge his paternity with respect to a child who has already been recognized as another man. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants in each of the two cases claimed (with a probability of 99.99% according to DNA analysis in one case) that they are the biological fathers of children for whom paternity has already been recognized by another man. Domestic legislation did not allow the contestation of paternity by a person or recognition of a child as his own. Having confined themselves to pointing out the connection between the legal father and the child, the courts of the country denied the applicants the right to initiate legal proceedings.
One of the applicants, who suspected that there was trafficking in persons (the mother subsequently admitted that the clinic that had observed her pregnancy linked her to a couple who wanted to adopt a child), persuaded the prosecutor to institute proceedings in a competent court. Without giving reasons, the prosecutor terminated the proceedings, after which the applicant vainly tried to resume it.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. In 2012, the European Court conducted a comparative legal study showing that a large majority of States allow filing lawsuits to challenge paternity, but there is no consensus in this regard. In view of this observation and other relevant factors, the authorities of the respondent State had wide margin of appreciation. However, the examination of the present case compelled the Court to conclude that they went beyond these limits.
In the present case, with reference to various provisions of the Family Code, the domestic courts rejected the applicants' claims because of the lack of the right to apply to the court. The legislative ban on contesting registered paternity does not seem to allow exceptions to the Bulgarian legislation. It follows from the intention of the country's legislator to give priority to the already established legal relationships to ensure the stability of family relations, and not to resolve the claims of the alleged biological fathers.
In the Court's view, although, of course, it was reasonable on the part of the domestic authorities to take into account the fact that the child already had established relations between the parent and the child, other factors, such as the special circumstances of each case, and in particular the situation various participants in the proceedings: the child, mother, stepfather and the alleged biological father. Nevertheless, the domestic courts did not take into account these circumstances.
With regard to any other remedies available to applicants under Bulgarian law, the following reasons forced the Court to conclude that they were ineffective in the situations that occurred.
(a) Possibility of direct action in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention. Although the latest decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal appears to offer such an opportunity, the respondent Government did not give examples of such actions. The suit brought by the first applicant on this basis was in fact declared inadmissible for consideration.
(b) The possibility of involving the prosecutor or social protection services. The domestic legislation allowed the prosecutor's office or the territorial subdivision of the social service to initiate proceedings to challenge paternity, which could lead to a declaration that the recognition of paternity is invalid if it does not correspond to the genetic relationship (art. 66, para. 5 of the Family Code). Thus, a person who claims to be a biological father can put forward his demand in the above-mentioned bodies and ask them to initiate proceedings. This method, which, apparently, was used in practice, nevertheless, had the following limitations:
(i) neither the Family Code nor any other legislative act indicated the situation in which the authorities should take such an initiative. From the domestic case-law and the explanations provided by the Social Security Agency, it follows that such proceedings must be initiated if it is suspected that the confession was used to bypass adoption legislation or there is a threat to the child;
(ii) this claim was not directly available to the applicants, since its filing was at the discretion of those public authorities who could use it in a particular case;
(iii) there was no statutory obligation to hear such an applicant (although in practice this was done in the context of domestic research);
(iv) any refusal to institute proceedings or its subsequent termination could not be appealed in the courts. In both cases, the relevant body was not required to give reasons for its decision;
(v) in order to decide whether to initiate proceedings, the relevant authorities were not required to consider the various interests concerned. While they seem to have taken into account the best interests of the child, especially if there was a risk to his health or well-being, or enforced adoption legislation, it does not appear that these interests were compared to other interests, especially those of the biological father;
(vi) the purpose of this claim was in fact not the judicial determination of the paternity of the biological father, but only the abolition of the legal relationship between the parent and the child arising from recognition. Consequently, such proceedings appeared to be limited to exceptional situations regarding compliance with the law or a threat to the child, and not by the conflict over the establishment of paternity.
(c) The possibility of recognizing paternity before birth. The law did allow the recognition of the child's paternity before birth, from the moment of conception. However, this was not always possible, especially if the father was not informed of the pregnancy, and in any case this was not a common practice in Bulgaria.
Even in the case of early recognition, the mother had the opportunity to make it ineffective by filing an objection. If the mother agreed to the recognition of paternity by another man before the man who calls himself the father who made the first declaration of recognition could have sued paternity, the latter, even if he was the biological father, would be in the same situation as the applicants in the present case, without the possibility of proving his paternity.
Accordingly, the possibility of recognizing paternity before birth could not be considered an effective means of establishing paternity in the absence of the consent of the mother.
In such circumstances, the European Court can not blame the applicants for failing to issue a declaration of paternity before their birth. In both cases, the applicants actually took steps to establish their paternity as soon as they learned of the birth of children.
From the foregoing, it can be concluded that the applicants did not have an effective opportunity to challenge the legal relationship between the parent and the child established by their confession, or directly establish their paternity. Accordingly, their right to respect for their personal lives was violated.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded each applicant 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. See also Rozanski v. Poland, judgment of 18 May 2006, application no. 55339/00.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/683-l-d-and-p-k-v-bulgaria .