Москва
+7-929-527-81-33
Вологда
+7-921-234-45-78
Вопрос юристу онлайн Юридическая компания ЛЕГАС Вконтакте

Новости от 28 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 28.08.2018 12:52

The applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered in the case. 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 (seven) 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 45,200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,000 to 7,300 euros.

The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the Smirnov and Others v. Russia case (аpplications N 34649/16, 65019/16, 65629/16, 65638/16, 74100/16, 77794 / 16 and 77807/16).


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/700-smirnov-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 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 (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 32,260 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 2,060 to 6,200 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the Baykina and Others v. Russia case (аpplications Nos. 33614/12, 51165/12, 67355/12, 72229/13, 76562/13 and 20387 / 14).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/701-baykina-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 (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 and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 39,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 1,000 to 7,300 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case of Yegorov and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 32795/16, 33543/16, 44913/16, 45190/16, 64785/16, 65913 / 16, 76874/16 and 76903/16).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/702-yegorov-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, 2010, 2011 and 2012, 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 (13 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 61 500 euros in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts of up to 41,500 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case of Zaynetdinov and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 325/07, 53462/07, 60787/08, 37712/09, 11176/10, 39001 / 11, 47888/11 and 31984/12).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/703-zaynetdinov-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The applicants successfully complained about the inhuman conditions of detention and the inadequate conditions for their detention, and the lack of an effective domestic remedy. There have been violations of the requirements of Article 3, Article 13 and Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

 

In 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014 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 (10 persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention, as well as inadequate conditions for their removal. 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 (right to an effective domestic remedy), paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) against certain applicants, and obliged the respondent State to pay applicants 106,400 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,000 to 19,500 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case of Mulyukov and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 31044/08, 10669/09, 62849/10, 63203/11, 3076/13, 36851 / 13, 16903/14, 64207/14, 16117/16 and 55353/16).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/704-mulyukov-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 (seven) 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 applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) with respect to of some applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 54,200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from EUR 6,300 to EUR 8,300.

The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case of Koshelev and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 29647/16, 41520/16, 48000/16, 48005/16, 52755/16, 52816 / 16 and 54236/16).


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/705-koshelev-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The applicants successfully complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

In 2007, 2008, 2013, 2015, 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 complained about the excessive length of pre-trial 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 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) against all the applicants, Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of certain and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants EUR 15,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,000 to 3,300 euros.

The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the Sokolova and Others v. Russia case (аpplications Nos. 25102/07, 34919/08, 65065/13, 45443/15, 17102/16, 34667 / 16, 1139/17 and 3442/17).


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/706-sokolova-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 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011 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 (nine 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 14,655 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts of up to 6,665 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the Dukhanin and Others v. Russia case (аpplications N 2349/06, 40373/06, 9438/08, 39377/08, 58421/08, 57878 / 09, 75585/11 and 32131/13).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/707-dukhanin-and-others-c-russia .

 

The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints of excessive length of pre-trial detention, the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of their detention and the excessive length of the proceedings in their cases. The case involved violations of the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 5, paragraph 1 of Article 6 and paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

In 2006, 2010, 2011, 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 complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention. Some applicants also complained about the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of their detention, the excessive length of the proceedings in their cases.

On 12 October 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court 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 the person) against all the applicants, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to fair trial) and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of certain applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 24,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,000 to 6,400 euros.

The ECHR judgment of 12 October 2017 in the case "Chernova and Others v. Russia" (аpplications N 20443/06, 13572/10, 77873/11, 21872/16, 29351/16, 30872 / 16, 34662/16 and 4516/17).


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/708-chernova-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints that their relatives had been killed by unidentified persons and that no effective investigation of this circumstance had been conducted. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

 

In 2009 and 2010, 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 that in February 2000 in Grozny unidentified persons were killed by their relatives and that no effective investigation of this circumstance was conducted.

 

On 10 October 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (the right to life) in its procedural aspect and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 15,000 euros as compensation for moral damage. All applicants were awarded EUR 285,000.

 

The ECHR judgment of 10 October 2017 in the case of Khadzhimuradov and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 21194/09, 21200/09, 24693/09, 24700/09, 27063/09, 27064 / 09, 27159/09, 27259/09, 30531/09, 30538/09, 30578/09, 32851/09, 32855/09, 32862/09, 32992/09, 18777/10 and 22304/10).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/709-khadzhimuradov-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

 

 

2018 m. Sausio 30 d. EŽTT sprendimas "Bendrovės" Sekmadienis "(UAB" Sekmadienis ") prieš Lietuvą (pareiškimo Nr. 69317/14).

 

2014 m. Pareiškėjos bendrovei padėjo parengti skundą. Vėliau pareiškimo buvo perduotas Lietuvai.

 

Tuo atveju skundas buvo sėkmingai svarstomas dėl komercinės bendrovės paskyrimo bauda už drabužių reklamos platinimą su religinio turinio įrašų įvaizdžiu. Byla buvo pažeista Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos 10 straipsnio reikalavimams.

 

 

 

BYLOS APLINKYBĖS

 


Pareiškėjas įmonė nubaudė 580 eurų, valstybės valdžios instituciją dėl vartotojų teisių apsaugos pažeidimą dalies ekvivalentą (1) ir Įstatymo dėl reklamos 4 straipsnio, susijusio su kampanija, pažeisdama viešąją moralę 2 dalyje. Kampanija buvo parodyti keletą reklamų serija, vaidina modelius dizainerio drabužius su žodžiais: "Jėzau, kas kelnės!", "Mergelės Marijos suknelė!" ir "Jėzau [ir] Marija, kad esi aprengtas!". Bendrovės pareiškėjos skundai vidaus teismuose buvo atmesti.

 


TEISINIAI KLAUSIMAI

 


Bausmė kreipėsi į įmonės-pareiškėjui laikytinas su savo teise į žodžio laisvę trukdžių buvo siekiama teisėto tikslo apsaugoti moralę, remiantis krikščionių tikėjimo ir apsaugoti religingų žmonių teisės nėra taikomos įžeidinėjimą savo įsitikinimų pagrindu.

 

Teismas nusprendė, kad nėra reikalo nustatyti, ar įsikišimas buvo numatytas įstatyme, nes bet kuriuo atveju tai nebuvo būtina demokratinėje visuomenėje.

 

Pirma, sunkvežimiai (kuri buvo sukurta neabejotinai panašumo vaizdų pareigūnų ir religinių veikėjų) neskirti dalyvauti viešoje diskusijoje religijos klausimu, ar bet kokių kitų bendrų interesų klausimais, todėl riboja vidaus institucijų diskrecijos buvo, atitinkamai platesni.

 

Antra, iš pirmo žvilgsnio reklama neatrodė pernelyg Įžeidi arba suteršia bet bjaurių nuo religinių įsitikinimų, ir jie nesudaro nepagrįstų ir įžeidžiantys išpuolių dėl religijos. Todėl nacionaliniai teismai buvo reikalaujama pateikti tinkamą ir pakankamą įrodymą, kodėl infomercials, tačiau prieštarauja viešajai moralei.

 

Trečia, priežastys nacionalinių teismų ir kitų institucijų, negalėjo būti laikoma tinkama ir pakankama, nes (i) valdžios institucijos nebuvo tinkamai pagrįsti, kodėl nuoroda į religinių simbolių reklamoje buvo Įžeidi arba kodėl gyvenimo būdą, kad buvo "nesuderinamas su tikinčiojo principais", būtinai nesuderinamas su visuomenės dorumu; (Ii) valdžios institucijos neišnagrinėjo pareiškėjos bendrovės argumentą, kad Jėzaus ir Marijos vardai reklamos nebuvo naudojami kaip religinių nuoroda, bet kaip emocinis nuoroda, bendra burnos Lietuvos ir taip sukurti komišką efektą; (III), nors visi nacionalinių teismų sprendimai yra nuorodos į "žmonių valia", vienintelė religinė grupė, kuri buvo konsultuojamasi per teismą, buvo Romos Katalikų Bažnyčia, nepaisant to, kad Lietuvoje kitų krikščionių ir nekrikščionių bendruomenių egzistavimą; (Iv), net darant prielaidą, kad valstybė atsakovė buvo teisus apie mano, kad reklama turi būti laikoma įžeidžiantis Lietuvos gyventojų dauguma, išpažinti krikščionišką tikėjimą, tai būtų nesuderinama su pagrindine Konvencijos vertybes, jei Konvencijos teisių įgyvendinimas mažuma priklausys ar dauguma jas priima.

 

Kaip rezultatas, nacionalinės valdžios institucijos neįrodė, teisingą pusiausvyrą tarp, viena vertus, visuomenės moralės apsaugos ir tikinčiųjų teises, ir, kita vertus, pareiškėjo teisė į saviraiškos laisvę. Jų sprendimų formuluotės patvirtina, kad institucijos turėjo absoliutus pranašumas apsaugoti tikinčiųjų ir žmonių jausmus nemokėjo tinkamai dėmesį į bendrovės pareiškėjos saviraiškos teise laisvę.

 


SPRENDIMAS

 


Tuo atveju, kai buvo paţeistas Konvencijos 10 straipsnio (vienbalsiai priimtas) reikalavimai.

 


KOMPENSACIJA

 


Taikydamas Konvencijos 41 straipsnį, Teisingumo Teismas ieškovei įmonei sumokėjo 580 eurų dėl materialinės žalos.

 

 

 

Išleidimo šaltinis: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/694-uab-sekmadienis-pries-lietuva .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 30 January 2018 in the case of the company "Sekmadienis Ltd." (Sekmadienis Ltd.) v. Lithuania" (application no. 69317/14).

 

In 2014, the applicant company was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Lithuania.

 

In the case, a complaint was successfully considered on the appointment of a commercial company a fine for the distribution of advertisements of clothes with the image of inscriptions of religious content. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant company was fined for an amount equivalent to 580 euros, by the public authority for the protection of consumers' rights for violating subparagraph (1) of paragraph 2 of article 4 of the Advertising Law in connection with the conduct of an advertising campaign that violates public morality. The campaign consisted of showing a series of commercials in which models in designer clothes were shot with the inscriptions: "Jesus, what pants!", "Virgin Mary, what a dress!" and "Jesus [and] Mary, that you are clothed!". Complaints of the applicant company in the domestic courts were rejected.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


The fine applied to the applicant company was an interference with her right to freedom of expression, pursued the legitimate aims of protecting morals based on the Christian faith and protecting the rights of religious people not to be insulted on the basis of their beliefs.

 

The Court ruled that there was no need to determine whether the interference had been prescribed by law, since in any case it was not necessary in a democratic society.

 

Firstly, the commercials (in which the unmistakable similarity between the depicted persons and religious figures were created) were not intended to participate in any public discussion concerning religious issues or any other issues of common interest, so the margin of appreciation of the domestic authorities was, respectively, wider.

 

Secondly, the commercials at first glance did not seem unreasonably offensive or defiling or inciting hatred on the basis of religious beliefs, and they did not constitute unreasonable and offensive attacks on religion. Consequently, it was the domestic courts that had to provide relevant and sufficient evidence of why the commercials, however, were contrary to public morality.

 

Thirdly, the arguments given by the domestic courts and other authorities could not be considered relevant and sufficient, since (i) the authorities did not give proper justification for why the reference to religious symbols in the commercials was offensive or why the way of life that was "incompatible with the principles of a believer", necessarily incompatible with public morality; (ii) the authorities did not consider the argument of the applicant company that the names Jesus and Mary in the commercials were not used as religious references, but as emotional mentions, common in the oral language of the Lithuanian language and thereby creating a comic effect; (iii) even though all decisions of domestic courts referred to "believing people", the only religious group that was consulted during the trial was the Roman Catholic Church, despite the existence of other Christian and non-Christian communities in Lithuania; (iv) even assuming that the authorities of the respondent State were right about the view that commercials should be considered insulting to the majority of the Lithuanian population professing the Christian faith would be incompatible with the fundamental convention values ​​if the exercise of conventional rights by a minority depended on whether the majority accepts them.

 

As a result, the domestic authorities failed to establish an equitable balance between, on the one hand, the protection of public morals and the rights of believers, and, on the other, the applicant's right to freedom of expression. The wording of their decisions confirmed that the authorities gave an absolute advantage to protecting the feelings of believers and did not pay proper attention to the right of the applicant company to freedom of expression.

 


DECISION

 


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

 


COMPENSATION

 


In application of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant company EUR 580 in respect of pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/695-sekmadienis-ltd-v-lithuania .

 

 

EGMR Urteil vom 30. Januar 2018 über den Fall „Etyut (Etute) gegen Luxemburg“ (Beschwerde N 18233/16).

 

Im Jahr 2016 wurde der Antragsteller bei der Vorbereitung der Beschwerde unterstützt. Anschließend wurde die Beschwerde an Luxemburg weitergeleitet.

 

Im Falle einer erfolgreich überprüft die Beschwerde der Klägerin, die seit der Abschaffung der Bewährung er kein Rechtsmittel hatte, die ihm erlauben würde, eine Überprüfung der Rechtmäßigkeit seiner Haft zu erhalten und um die Freigabe zu sichern, wenn illegale Einschränkung der Freiheit gefunden. Im Fall eines Verstoßes gegen die Vorschriften des Absatzes 4 des Artikels 5 der Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten.

 

 

 

UMSTÄNDE DES FALLES

 


Im November 2010 verurteilte das Berufungsgericht den Beschwerdeführer wegen Straftaten im Zusammenhang mit dem unerlaubten Handel mit Suchtstoffen zu 30 Monaten Haft. Der Beschwerdeführer hat einen Teil der Strafe ausgesetzt und wurde im März 2013 auf Bewährung entlassen. In Fortschritten für eine Einigung der parole Antragsteller zwischen dem Generalstaatsanwalt und den Antragstellern wurden verschiedene Bedingungen der Freisetzung eingestellt, einschließlich dem Mangel an Begegnungen mit Menschen, die Drogen nehmen, und das Verbot in kriminellen Aktivitäten zu engagieren. In der Vereinbarung heißt es, dass die bedingte Entlassung des Antragstellers annulliert würde, wenn die Bedingungen nicht eingehalten würden, und der Beschwerdeführer würde zur Verbüßung der Reststrafe geschickt werden.

 

Im Oktober 2015 wurde gefunden, dass die Klägerin Freiheitsberaubung im Zusammenhang mit seiner Beteiligung an dem Verbrechen des Drogenhandels bestellt, und der Antragsteller wurde in Haft genommen.

 

Im November 2015 hob der Vertreter der Generalstaatsanwältin die bedingte Entlassung des Beschwerdeführers mit der Begründung auf, dass der Beschwerdeführer in Gewahrsam genommen worden sei, was den Bedingungen der Vereinbarung von 2013 nicht entsprochen habe.

 


Fragen des Gesetzes

 


Zur Einhaltung von Artikel 5 Absatz 4 des Übereinkommens. Die bedingte Entlassung des Beschwerdeführers unterbrach die Haftzeit für die Verurteilung des Beschwerdeführers durch das Urteil von 2010. Die Freiheitsdauer, die unter den Bedingungen der bedingten Entlassung verbracht wurde, wurde nicht von der verhängten Strafe abgezogen.

 

die Rückkehr des Antragstellers in die JVA im Jahr 2015 November einen Teil ihrer Strafe verbüßen, die zum Zeitpunkt des Antragstellers bedingte Entlassung blieb auf der letztgenannten Entscheidung beruht, nämlich die Entscheidung, die parole Antragsteller abzuschaffen. Sie beruht allein auf der Tatsache, dass die Situation des Antragstellers nicht mehr die Bestimmungen der Vereinbarung über die bedingte Entlassung des Antragstellers von den weiteren Strafe, insbesondere trifft, dass der Antragsteller keine weiteren Verbrechen zu begehen hat und mit Menschen zu treffen, die Drogen nehmen. Unter diesen Umständen war die Frage der Einhaltung der Bestimmungen der Vereinbarung über die bedingte Entlassung des Beschwerdeführers für die Rechtmäßigkeit der Inhaftnahme des Beschwerdeführers seit November 2015 ausschlaggebend. Die Rückkehr des Beschwerdeführers in die Strafvollzugsanstalt war ein neuer Umstand, der durch die Abschaffung der bedingten Entlassung des Beschwerdeführers von seiner Strafe verursacht wurde. Folglich musste das innerstaatliche Rechtssystem dem Beschwerdeführer Zugang zu einem Rechtsbehelf gewähren, der die Anforderungen von Artikel 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention erfüllte, um dieses Problem zu lösen.

 

Nach dem Strafgesetzbuch wurden Entscheidungen über die bedingte Entlassung aus der Strafe vom Generalstaatsanwalt getroffen. Jedoch in Übereinstimmung mit der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes, die Staatsanwaltschaft kann keine „Gericht“ im Sinne von Artikel 5 § 4 des Übereinkommens.

 

Die zum fraglichen Zeitpunkt geltenden Rechtsvorschriften enthielten keine Bestimmungen zur Einreichung einer Beschwerde über die Rechtswidrigkeit der Entscheidung, die bedingte Entlassung aufzuheben.

 

Diese Argumente waren ausreichend, um sicherzustellen, dass das Gericht zu dem Schluss gekommen, die seit der Abschaffung der bedingten Entlassung, die Klägerin keine gerichtlichen Rechtsschutz im November 2015 haben, die ihn erlauben würde, wie sie in Artikel 5 § 4 des Übereinkommens erforderlich ist, um eine Bewertung zu erhalten die Frage der Rechtmäßigkeit seiner Inhaftierung im Zusammenhang mit diesem Umstand und die Freilassung für den Fall, dass die Einschränkung der Freiheit als rechtswidrig anerkannt wird.

 


ENTSCHEIDUNG

 


Im Falle eines Verstoßes gegen die Anforderungen von Artikel 5 Absatz 4 des Übereinkommens (einstimmig angenommen).

 


Entschädigung

 


In Artikel 41 des Übereinkommens hat der Gerichtshof entschieden, dass die Feststellung einer Verletzung an sich der Konvention eine hinreichende gerechte Entschädigung für den immateriellen Schaden darstellen würde, wurde die Voraussetzung für Vermögensschäden abgelehnt.

 

 

 

Quelle der Veröffentlichung: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/696-etute-gegen-luxemburg .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR Decree of 30 January 2018 in the case of Etute (Etute) v. Luxembourg (application No. 18233/16).

 

In 2016, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Luxembourg.

 

In the case, the applicant successfully complained that since the abolition of his conditional release, he had not had a judicial remedy that would enable him to obtain a review of the lawfulness of his detention and obtain release if the restriction of liberty is declared unlawful. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


In November 2010, the Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to 30 months' imprisonment for crimes related to illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. The applicant left part of the sentence and was released on probation in March 2013. In the agreement reached between the representative of the Prosecutor General and the applicant, the conditions for the release were set out for the applicant's conditional release, including the lack of meetings with persons who use drugs and the prohibition of participating in criminal activities. The agreement stated that if the conditions were not observed, the applicant's conditional release would be canceled, and the applicant would be sent to serve the remaining sentence.

 

In October 2015, a decision was made to deprive the applicant of his liberty in connection with his involvement in the crime of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs, and the applicant was placed in custody.

 

In November 2015, the representative of the Attorney-General abolished the applicant's conditional release on the grounds that the applicant was placed in detention, which did not comply with the terms of the 2013 agreement.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention. The conditional release of the applicant interrupted the term of serving the sentence imposed on the applicant by the verdict of 2010. The period spent at liberty under the conditional release conditions was not deducted from the sentence imposed.

 

The applicant's return to the correctional facility in November 2015 to serve part of the sentence that remained at the time of the applicant's conditional release was based on the last decision, namely, on the decision to cancel the applicant's conditional release. This decision was based solely on the fact that the applicant's situation no longer met the provisions of the agreement on the conditional release of the applicant from further serving his sentence, in particular that the applicant should no longer commit crimes and meet with persons who use drugs. In these circumstances, the issue of compliance with the provisions of the conditional release agreement of the applicant was decisive for the legality of the applicant's detention since November 2015. The applicant's return to the correctional facility was a new circumstance, caused by the abolition of the applicant's conditional release from serving his sentence. Consequently, in order to resolve this issue, the domestic legal system had to grant the applicant access to a judicial remedy that met the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

 

According to the Criminal Code, decisions on conditional release from serving punishment were taken by the Prosecutor General. However, in accordance with the Court's case-law, the public prosecutor could not be considered a "court" within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

 

The legislation in force at the time in question did not contain provisions on filing a complaint about the unlawfulness of the decision to abolish conditional release.

 

These arguments were sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that, since the release of probation in November 2015, the applicant had not had a judicial remedy that would enable him, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, to obtain a review the question of the lawfulness of his detention in connection with this circumstance and to obtain release in the event that the restriction of freedom is recognized as unlawful.

 


DECISION

 


In the case there was a violation of the requirements of paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Convention (unanimously adopted).

 

 

 

COMPENSATION

 


In application of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court held that the finding of a violation of the Convention would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage was rejected.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/697-etute-v-luxembourg .

 

 

Wyrok ETPC z 23 stycznia 2018 r. W sprawie Kushta przeciwko Polsce (skarga nr 58683/08).

 

W 2008 r. Skarżącemu udzielono pomocy w przygotowaniu skargi. Następnie skarga została zakomunikowana Polsce.

 

Sprawę z powodzeniem uznano za skargę na werdykt na podstawie zeznań innych oskarżonych w sprawie w przypadku braku konfrontacji ze świadkami. Sprzeciwiano się art. 6 ust. 3 lit. d) Konwencji o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności.

 

 

 

OKOLICZNOŚCI SPRAWY

 


W 2006 r. Kilka osób, w tym skarżąca, zostało skazanych za nieuczciwe nabywanie telefonów komórkowych po obniżonej stawce. Ich winy powstała głównie na zeznaniach głównego oskarżonego, P.N., telesprzedaży Menedżer, który przyznał się policji, że on zorganizował oszukańczego systemu w taki sam sposób dla wszystkich oskarżonych, stwierdzając, że wszyscy kupujący byli świadomi nielegalnego charakteru ich zamówień. Na prośbę P.N. został zwolniony z obowiązku osobiście uczestniczenia w posiedzeniach sądowych. W konsekwencji jego zeznania zostały ogłoszone dopiero w sądzie, a pozostali oskarżeni nie mieli możliwości zadawania pytań P.N.

 


KWESTIE PRAWA

 


Dotyczące zgodności z ustępem 1 i podpunktem "d" artykułu 3 ustęp 3 Konwencji. Zasady precedensu dotyczące korzystania z zeznania nieobecnego świadka, stosowano przez analogię do zeznań nieobecnego innego pozwanego w sprawie.

 

Niniejszy przypadek należy odróżnić od przypadku „Riahi przeciwko Belgii” (Riahi v. Belgia) (wyrok z dnia 14 czerwca 2016, N 65400/10 skargi), w której występuje świadek, pierwszy przesłuchiwany policję, a następnie sędzia śledczy. W niniejszej sprawie nieobecny pozwany w tej sprawie był przesłuchiwany wyłącznie przez funkcjonariuszy policji, a nigdy przez prokuratora lub sędziego.

 

Sądy krajowe uznały, że przesłuchanie na posiedzeniu otwartym osoby, która wydała kwestionowane oświadczenia, nie było konieczne dla ustalenia prawdy w sprawie. Rzeczywiście, miał on status pozwanego i korzystał ze swoich praw wynikających z kodeksu postępowania karnego. Nawet gdyby został wezwany do sądu, nadal mógłby skorzystać z prawa do nie składania zeznań. W takich okolicznościach obecność P.N. w sądzie nie gwarantował możliwości otrzymania od niego dodatkowych informacji.

 

Jednak ze względu na uzasadnienie sądów krajowych jest jasne, (a) rozważyć, czy zakwestionowany dowód jak decydujące znaczenie dla treści wyroku, lub (b) czy sądy dokładnie rozważyć pytanie o konsekwencje niestawiennictwa P.N. do sądu, aby ustalić prawdę w sprawie lub kwestię istnienia gwarancji, które równoważą niekorzystną sytuację, w której miała miejsce obrona skarżącej.

 

(a) W odniesieniu do znaczenia kwestionowanego materiału dowodowego dla treści wyroku w sprawie skarżącego. Sądy polskie wskazały, że oparły werdykt na całym materiale dowodowym w sprawie. Niemniej jednak, zdaniem Trybunału, nie można zaprzeczyć, że zeznania P.N. były decydujące w wyroku. Rzeczywiście, aby wykazać, że wina przypisana akt skarżącego zostało popełnione, oraz wyjaśnienie zakresu swojej winy, sąd musiał ustalić Criminal Intent i świadomość bezprawności swoich działań wnioskodawcy. Zeznania złożone przez innych oskarżonych w tej sprawie nie były jednoznaczne i nie świadczyły wprost, że wszyscy oskarżeni działali z pełną świadomością swoich działań lub z takim samym stopniem przestępczego zamiaru. Jako jedyny naoczny świadek zbrodni P.N. w rzeczywistości była jedyną osobą, która mogła wyjaśnić te kwestie. Żadne z innych dowodów uznanych przez sądy krajowe za dopuszczalne nie mogło w większym stopniu przyczynić się do rozwiązania problemu zbrodniczego zamiaru skarżącego, ponieważ potwierdzały jedynie zeznania P.N.

 

(b) Obecność gwarancji proceduralnych, które równoważą możliwość strony skarżącej w postępowaniu. Ani sędzia, ani skarżący nie widzieli P.N. dając im świadectwo oceny ich wiarygodności.

 

Chociaż polskie sądy oceniły wiarygodność dowodów w świetle innych dowodów w sprawie, nic w aktach sprawy nie wykazało, że sądy przywiązują do nich mniejsze znaczenie, ponieważ obrona nie mogła przesłuchać P.N. lub że sędziowie nie widzieli ani nie słyszeli P.N. Cokolwiek dokładny ani był taki czek, choć badania przez sąd do przeprowadzenia rozprawy w jego wypadku było niewłaściwe sposobem sprawdzenia wiarygodności tych dowodów, ponieważ nie było żadnych danych, które mogą pojawić się podczas konfrontacji w jawnym między oskarżonego i oskarżyciela.

 

Jeśli chodzi o fakt, że odpowiednie przepisy Kodeksu postępowania karnego zostały zagwarantowane przez P.N. niektóre specjalne prawa, w tym prawo do odmowy składania zeznań lub udzielania odpowiedzi na niektóre pytania bez wyjaśnienia, było to z pewnością ważne dla oceny uczciwości całego procesu, ale nie było to jednak decydujące.

 

Z punktu widzenia Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości okazję do podważenia dowodów obciążających przy pomocy dowodów lub powołanie świadków nie równoważone przez fakt, że żaden z etapów produkcji w przypadku, gdy wnioskodawca nie był w stanie zweryfikować prawdziwość lub dokładność zeznań świadka ich odwołania.

 

Fakt, że skarżący nie złożył stosownej skargi podczas procesu w sądzie pierwszej instancji, nie ma wpływu na ten wniosek, ponieważ na tym etapie nie był on wspierany przez zawodowego prawnika.
Tak więc skarżący nie miał wystarczającej lub odpowiedniej możliwości odwołania się od zeznania, które stało się decydującym dowodem przeciwko niemu przy podejmowaniu decyzji o wyroku.

 


DECYZJA

 


Pogwałcenie wymogów ustępu 1 i punktu "d" ust. 3 Artykułu 6 Konwencji zostało naruszone (jednogłośnie).

 


ODSZKODOWANIE

 


Stosując art. 41 Konwencji, Trybunał przyznał skarżącemu 2 000 EUR z tytułu szkody niepieniężnej.

 

 

 

Źródło publikacji: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/698-kushta-przeciwko-polsce .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 23 January 2018 in the case of Kushta v. Poland (application No. 58683/08).

 

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

 

The case was successfully considered a complaint against the verdict on the basis of the testimony of other defendants in the case in the absence of confrontation with witnesses. The requirements of subparagraph (d) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were violated.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


In 2006, several people, including the applicant, were convicted of fraudulent acquisition of mobile phones at a reduced rate. Their guilt was established mainly on the basis of the testimony of the main defendant, P.N., the phone sales manager, who confessed to the police that he had organized a fraudulent scheme using a similar method for all defendants, indicating that all buyers knew about the illegal nature of their purchases. At the request of P.N. he was released from the obligation to personally attend court sessions. Consequently, his testimony was only announced in court, and the other defendants were not given the opportunity to ask questions of P.N.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with paragraph 1 and subparagraph "d" of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention. The precedent principles regarding the use of the testimony of an absent witness, applied by analogy to the testimony of the absent other defendant in the case.

 

This case should be distinguished from the case of Riahi v. Belgium (Judgment of 14 June 2016, complaint No. 65400/10), in which the absent witness was first interrogated by police officers and then by an investigating judge. In the present case, the absent defendant in the case was questioned only by police officers and never by a prosecutor or judge.

 

The domestic courts considered that the questioning in an open court session of the person who gave the impugned statements was not necessary to establish the truth in the case. Indeed, he had the status of a defendant and exercised his rights under the Criminal Procedure Code. Even if he were summoned to court, he could still use the right not to testify. Under such circumstances, the presence of P.N. in the court did not guarantee the possibility of receiving additional information from him.

 

However, it is not clear from the domestic courts' arguments that: (a) the impugned statements were considered as decisive for the content of the verdict, or (b) whether the courts carefully examined the issue of the consequences of the non-appearance of P.N. to the court to establish the truth in the case or the question of the existence of guarantees that would balance the unfavorable situation in which the applicant's defense was.

 

(a) Concerning the significance of the impugned evidence for the content of the verdict in the applicant's case. The courts of Poland indicated that they based the verdict on the entire body of evidence in the case. Nevertheless, in the Court's view, it can not be denied that the testimony of P.N. were decisive in the sentencing. Indeed, in order to demonstrate that the offense committed to the applicant was committed, and in order to clarify the extent of his guilt, the courts had to establish the criminal intent and awareness of the illegality of his actions by the applicant. The testimony given by other defendants on this issue was not unambiguous and did not directly testify that all the defendants acted with full consciousness of their actions or with the same degree of criminal intent. As the only eyewitness to the crimes of P.N. in fact, was the only person who could clarify these issues. None of the other evidence recognized by domestic courts as admissible could not have helped in any greater degree to resolve the issue of the applicant's criminal intent, since they only confirmed the testimony of P.N.

 

(b) Presence of procedural guarantees that would balance the possibility of the applicant's party in the proceedings. Neither the judge nor the applicant saw P.N. while giving them testimony to assess their credibility.

 

Although the Polish courts assessed the credibility of the evidence in the light of other evidence in the case, nothing in the case file showed that the courts would give them less importance because the defense could not interrogate P.N. or that the judges have not seen or heard P.N. No matter how thorough such a check, however, a study by a judge who conducted a hearing on his case was an inadequate way of verifying the reliability of such statements, since there were no data that could appear during a confrontation in an open trial between the accused and the prosecutor .

 

As for the fact that the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure were guaranteed by P.N. some special rights, including the right to refuse to testify or answer certain questions without explanation, this was certainly important for assessing the fairness of the process as a whole, but, however, was not a decisive factor.

 

From the Court's point of view, the possibility of appealing the accused testimony by presenting evidence or calling witnesses did not balance the fact that at no stage in the proceedings the applicant had been able to verify the veracity or credibility of the witness's testimony by appealing them.

 

The fact that the applicant did not file an appropriate complaint during the trial of the first-instance court does not affect this conclusion, because at this stage he was not assisted by a professional lawyer.

 

Thus, the applicant did not have sufficient or appropriate opportunity to appeal the testimony, which became decisive evidence against him when deciding the sentence.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 and subparagraph "d" of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention was violated (unanimously).

 


COMPENSATION

 


In application of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/699-kushta-v-poland .