Новости от 15 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation and the lack of effective domestic legal remedies in this regard. 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 2013 and 2014, 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 (seven) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation, as well as the lack of effective domestic legal remedies 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), stating that the authorities of the respondent State must enforce the relevant judgments within three months. The applicants did not submit claims for fair compensation.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case "Belonozhko and Others v. Russia" (аpplications Nos. 48691/13, 52355/13, 39924/14, 40131/14, 45207/14 and 45292 / 14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/684-belonozhko-and-others-c-russia .
The applicants successfully complained about the inhuman conditions of detention and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2016 and 2017, 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 (10 persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Some claimants also referred to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 12 October 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all the applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) for certain and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 57,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,000 to 7,800 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case of Potapov and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 40016/16, 42313/16, 64760/16, 67671/16, 69643/16, 11009 / 17, 11273/17, 11281/17, 12934/17 and 13727/17).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/685-potapov-and-others-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation, as well as the lack of effective domestic legal remedies in this regard. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2008, 2009, 2013 and 2014, 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) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation, as well as the lack of effective domestic legal remedies in this regard.
On 12 October 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), stating that the respondent Government should enforce the relevant judgments during three months.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case of Okolelov and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 8356/08, 21561/08, 395/09, 15344/13, 30086/13, 40295 / 14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/686-okolelov-and-others-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered, the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard. Violations of the requirements of articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights were committed in the case.
In 2009 and 2016, 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 (eight) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Some claimants also referred to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 12 October 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all the applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) for certain applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 55,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,000 to 9,800 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case "Dolgov and Others v. Russia" (аpplications N 7369/09, 34580/16, 44329/16, 45603/16, 57720/16, 65299 / 16, 66889/16, 73764/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/687-dolgov-and-others-c-russia .
The applicants successfully complained about the inhuman conditions of detention and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard. Violations of the requirements of articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights were committed in the case.
In 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017, 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 (10 persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Some claimants also referred to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 12 October 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all the applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) for certain applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants 61 100 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,000 to 12,300 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case of Chibotar and Others v. Russia (аpplications Nos. 72221/11, 433/13, 51988/14, 52515/14, 53236/14, 53537 / 14, 63426/14, 47129/16, 49719/16, 1695/17).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/688-chibotar-and-others-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation, as well as the lack of effective domestic legal remedies in this regard. The case involved violations of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2011, 2012, 2013-2014, 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 (eight persons) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation, as well as the lack of effective domestic legal remedies 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), stating that the authorities of the respondent State must enforce the relevant judgments within three months.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the Markiny and Others v. Russia case (аpplications N 66076/11, 2273/12, 33370/12, 44948/12, 19425/13, 31134 / 14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/689-markiny-and-others-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints of excessive length of pre-trial detention, unsatisfactory conditions of detention, and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in connection with unsatisfactory conditions of detention. A violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights was committed in the case.
In 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014, 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 complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the unsatisfactory conditions of detention. Some claimants also referred to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in connection with unsatisfactory conditions of detention.
On 12 October 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court, having accepted the declarations of the Government of the Russian Federation that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on conditions of detention, unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) against all applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) against certain applicants, and obliged the State arstvo the respondent to pay the applicants 26,200 euros in non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,000 to 4,700 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the Zaytsev and Others v. Russia case (аpplications N 57476/09, 761/10, 3459/10, 54773/10, 11420/12, 36421 / 12, 38110/12, 74969/13, 35673 / 14.48873 / 14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/690-zaytsev-and-others-c-russia .
The applicants successfully complained about the inhuman conditions of detention and the lack of an effective domestic remedy. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2016, 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 (10 persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. One applicant also complained about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 12 October 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all the applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) for one and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 75,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,500 to 8,500 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case of Dubinin and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 37783/16, 46834/16, 48299/16, 50497/16, 50828/16, 50946 / 16, 52555/16, 52563/16, 66925/16 and 69653/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/691-dubinin-and-others-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 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2013, 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 (seven persons) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or of delay in their execution. The applicants also 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 36,054 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 2,500 to 6,027 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case of Avdeyev and Others v. Russia (аpplications no. 35187/07, 12724/08, 19122/08, 39659/08, 56636/09 and 54398 / 13).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/692-avdeyev-and-others-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. 1 to the Convention.
In 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2013, 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 (seven persons) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation. 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 of the applicants, the Court of the unanimously held in the present case. Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection), and ordered the respondent EUR 36,054 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 2,500 to 6,027 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case of Avdeyev and Others v. Russia (аpplications no. 35187/07, 12724/08, 19122/08, 39659/08, 56636/09 and 54398/13).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/693-morozov-and-others-c-russia .
