Новости от 29 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
In the case, the applicant's complaint for failure to comply with the judgment of the Russian Federation in her husband's favor was successfully examined. 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, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In her complaint, the applicant complained about non-compliance with the decision of the Russian Federation court in her husband's favor. After the death of her husband, the applicant, within the framework of domestic procedures, joined the process aimed at implementing the decision.
On 3 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 16,300 euros as just satisfaction.
The ECHR judgment of 03 October 2017 in the case "Postnova v. Russia" (аpplication No. 50113/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/716-postnova-c-russia .
The applicants successfully complained about the fact that their rights were violated as a result of the arrest imposed on their property because of the criminal acts of their close relative. The case violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2008, the applicants were assisted in preparing the аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaint, the applicants, mother, father and daughter complained that their rights were violated as a result of the arrest imposed on their property because of the criminal acts of their close relative.
On October 3, 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to property protection) and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants EUR 6,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 03 October 2017 in the case of Eilders and Others v. Russia (аpplications no. 475/08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/717-eilders-and-others-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint that his criminal prosecution for inciting hatred or enmity for the publication of articles constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression and that the proceedings in his case were not fair, For refusing to attach the expert's conclusion on the part of the defense. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2006, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant argued that his criminal prosecution for inciting hatred or enmity for the publication of two articles on the events of the conflict in the Chechen Republic in the newspaper in which he was the editor-in-chief constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression. The applicant also complained that the proceedings in his case were not fair, in particular, because of the refusal to attach the expert's conclusion on the part of the defense.
On 3 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (right to freedom of expression) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage .
The ECHR judgment of October 3, 2017 in the case of Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia (аpplication No. 42168/06).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/718-dmitriyevskiy-c-russia .
In the case, the applicant successfully complained of a violation of her rights in connection with her eviction from an apartment that she acquired from a person whose right to that apartment was subsequently declared invalid. The violation of the requirement of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights was committed in the case.
In 2015, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In her complaint, the applicant, who was a conscientious acquirer but did not register her ownership of the apartment, complained of a violation of her rights in connection with her eviction from an apartment that she acquired from a person whose right to that apartment was subsequently declared invalid.
On 3 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for private and family life) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7,500 in compensation moral harm.
The ECHR judgment of 03 October 2017 in the case "Ganeyeva v. Russia" (аpplication No. 7839/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/719-ganeyeva-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the complaints of the applicants for the cancellation of court decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation rendered in their favor, in view of newly discovered circumstances. The violation of the requirement of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights was committed in the case.
In 2011, the applicants were assisted in preparing the аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaint, the applicants (five persons) complained of the cancellation of the judgments of the courts of the Russian Federation rendered in their favor, in view of the newly discovered circumstances.
On October 3, 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay each of the applicants 1,500 euros fair compensation.
The ECHR judgment of 03 October 2017 in the case "Vorobyeva and Others v. Russia" (аpplications No. 65969/11).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/720-vorobyeva-and-others-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint that he was ill-treated by law enforcement officers and the lack of an effective investigation of this circumstance, on the illegality of detention in connection with the absence of any fixation of the fact of his detention. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and subparagraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2013, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by law enforcement officials and that there was no effective investigation of this circumstance. The applicant also complained about the unlawfulness of detention in connection with the absence of any fixation of the fact of his detention.
On October 3, 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in its substantive and procedural aspects, Article 5 § 1 (c) liberty and security of the person), and obliged the respondent State to pay the applicant 26,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 03 October 2017 in the case of Kramarenko v. Russia (аpplication No. 26107/13).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/721-kramarenko-c-russia .
In the case, the applicant successfully complained that she had not received adequate medical attention. The case involved violations of the requirements of articles 3 and 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2016, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In her complaint, the applicant, who suffered from a number of diseases and served a sentence, complained that she had not received proper medical care in connection with her cervical cancer. After the applicant's death, her daughter supported the complaint.
On 3 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 34 of the Convention (right to lodge an individual complaint) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant's daughter 20 000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 03 October 2017 in the case of Semenova v. Russia (аpplication No. 11788/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/722-semenova-c-russia .
The applicant successfully complained that he had not been heard at the hearing when deciding whether to extend the term of his detention. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2006, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained that he had not been heard at the hearing when deciding whether to extend the term of his detention, and that his lawyer was absent in the proceedings.
On 3 October 2017, on the application lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 2,500 euros compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 03 October 2017 in the case of Medvedev v. Russia (аpplication No. 10932/06).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/723-medvedev-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions in places of serving their sentences and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard were successfully considered. Violations of the requirements of articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights were committed in the case.
In 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2013, the applicants were assisted in preparing the аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (seven persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention in places of serving their sentences. Some claimants also referred to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 28 September 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present 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) with respect to of some of the applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 54,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 1,700 to 16,300 euros.
The ECHR judgment of September 28, 2012 on the case "Zelenkov and Others v. Russia" (аpplications N 8306/10, 71726/12, 8684/13, 63359/13, 44330/15, 44212 / 16, 64171/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/724-zelenkov-and-others-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint that the decision to evict her from the apartment she had purchased from a person who did not have rights to her, but that the applicant was not aware of during the conclusion of the contract of sale, violated her rights. The case violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2015, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In her complaint, the applicant, who was a conscientious acquirer, complained that the decision to evict her from the apartment she had purchased from a person who did not have rights to her, but that the applicant was not aware of when signing the contract of sale, violated her rights.
On 26 September 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to property protection) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 5,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of September 26, 2017 in the case of Knyazeva v. Russia (аpplication No. 4877/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/725-khaziyeva-c-russia .
Sentenza della Corte EDU dell'11 gennaio 2018 nel caso Cipoletta c. Italia (ricorso n. 38259/09).
Nel 2009, il richiedente è stato assistito nella preparazione della ricorso. La ricorso è stata successivamente comunicata in Italia.
Nel caso, il reclamo del richiedente sull'esistenza di una disputa (obiezione) nell'ambito della procedura di liquidazione amministrativa di una persona giuridica è stato considerato con successo dal momento in cui il creditore richiede di includere le sue rivendicazioni alla società fallita nella lista dei creditori. Il caso riguardava una violazione dei requisiti dell'articolo 6, paragrafo 1, e dell'articolo 13 della Convenzione per la protezione dei diritti umani e delle libertà fondamentali.
CIRCOSTANZE DEL CASO
Il richiedente era il capo della compagnia. Egli ha affermato di essere un creditore di un'altra società con la partecipazione della capitale dello stato, per i quali è stata avviata la procedura di forzata "chiusura amministrativa" (speciale procedura interna, che si differenzia dal fallimento di <1>), guidata dal liquidatore. Si veda, ad esempio, la legge italiana sulla 16 marzo 1942 N 267 "Le regole della procedura di fallimento, procedura preventiva soddisfare i requisiti, il procedimento amministrativo di fallimento" (Disciplina del Fallimento, del concordato preventivo, dell'Amministrazione Controllata e della liquidazione coatta Amministrativa).
Nel giugno 1985, il liquidatore informò la ricorrente dell'avvio della procedura di liquidazione e redigendo un elenco dei debiti della società. Poiché la domanda della ricorrente non è stata registrata, nel luglio 1985 ha inviato al liquidatore una richiesta per includerlo nell'elenco dei creditori. Nell'agosto del 1985, il liquidatore compilò un elenco degli obblighi di debito della società, escluse le richieste del richiedente. Nel settembre 1986 la ricorrente ha sollevato obiezioni contro tale elenco.
Con decisione del tribunale nel mese di aprile del 1997, trovando che la ricorrente e il liquidatore hanno firmato un accordo sulla presenza della domanda della ricorrente alla liquidazione della società, sostenuta obiezione del richiedente e di modificare l'elenco dei creditori.
Nel dicembre 2010, la liquidazione amministrativa della società in questione era ancora in corso.
QUESTIONI DI LEGGE
Riguardo all'osservanza dell'articolo 6, paragrafo 1, della Convenzione. a) Ricevibilità della denuncia. Nella presente causa, la Corte doveva decidere sull'applicabilità delle disposizioni dell'art. 6 della Convenzione alla procedura di "liquidazione amministrativa".
La Corte ha ritenuto necessario applicare un nuovo approccio per razionalizzare la propria giurisprudenza in relazione alle garanzie fornite ai creditori, indipendentemente dal fatto che sono previste nel corso ordinario di procedura fallimentare o le "chiusura amministrative" procedure speciali e, quindi, a prescindere dallo status giuridico del debitore.
La Corte ha osservato che, in aggiunta a qualsiasi differenze nella classificazione nazionale tra il fallimento normale e "chiusura amministrativa", i finanziatori invocato il recupero dei loro debiti a terzi, che era quello di confermare la presenza di debito e di effettuare pagamenti a spese dei loro beni.
Per quanto riguarda la procedura fallimentare in generale, la Corte ha sempre indicato che la controversia sussiste dal momento in cui il creditore presenta una denuncia.
Per quanto riguarda la procedura di "chiusura amministrativa", la Corte rileva che il creditore potrebbe chiedere di includere nella lista di richieste di debiti della società in liquidazione della dalla prima notifica della liquidatore relativa alla verifica dei debiti oggetto di liquidazione.
Analizzando le conseguenze specifiche della misura nel contesto della procedura in questione, la Corte è giunta alla conclusione che questa vera e propria controversia sul diritto civile deriva dall'applicazione del prestatore. Nel presente caso, la richiesta era basata su una cambiale. Di conseguenza, l'articolo 6 § 1 della Convenzione è applicabile alla presente causa.
(b) Meriti. Pur riconoscendo la complessità della procedura fallimentare, la Corte ritiene che la durata complessiva della procedura in questione, circa 25 anni e sei mesi, è stata eccessiva e non è riuscito a soddisfare il "termine ragionevole" istituito dall'articolo 6 § 1 della Convenzione.
DECISIONE
Nel caso di una violazione dell'articolo 6 § 1 della Convenzione (approvata con sei voti "per" uno - "contro").
La Corte ha inoltre rilevato che v'è stata una violazione dell'articolo 13 della Convenzione, in assenza di un ricorso interno effettivo con cui la ricorrente ha potuto contestare l'assenza del suo caso entro un termine ragionevole (adottato da sei voti "per" uno - "contro" ).
COMPENSAZIONE
L'articolo 41 della Convenzione, la Corte ha assegnato al richiedente 24.000 euro di danno non patrimoniale, il requisito per danno materiale è stata respinta.
Fonte di pubblicazione: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/710-cipoletta-c-italia .
The ECHR judgment of 11 January 2018 in the case of Cipoletta v. Italy (application No. 38259/09).
In 2009, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. The application was subsequently communicated in Italy.
In the case, the applicant's complaint on the existence of a dispute (objection) within the administrative liquidation procedure of a legal entity was successfully considered from the moment when the creditor demands to include his claims to the company-bankrupt in the list of creditors. The case involved a violation of the requirements of article 6, paragraph 1, and article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was the head of the company. He claimed that he was a creditor of another company with state capital participation, against which a procedure of compulsory "administrative liquidation" (a special domestic procedure different from bankruptcy <1>) was started under the leadership of the liquidator. See, for example, the Act of Italy of March 16, 1942, No. 267, "Rules of bankruptcy procedure, procedure for preventive claims, administrative procedure for bankruptcy" (Disciplina del Fallimento, del concordato preventive, dell'amministrazione controllata e della liquidazione coatta amministrativa).
In June 1985, the liquidator informed the applicant about the commencement of the liquidation procedure and drawing up a list of the company's debts. Since the applicant's claim was not registered, in July 1985 he sent the liquidator a request to include him in the list of creditors. In August 1985, the liquidator compiled a list of the company's debt obligations, not including the applicant's claims. In September 1986 the applicant filed objections to the said list.
By a decision of April 1997, the tribunal, having established that the applicant and the liquidator had signed an agreement on the applicant's claims to the company being liquidated, supported the applicant's objection and accordingly changed the list of creditors.
In December 2010, the administrative liquidation of the company in question was still ongoing.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. (a) Admissibility of the complaint. In the present case, the Court had to decide on the applicability of the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention to the procedure of "administrative liquidation".
The Court considered it necessary to apply a new approach to streamline its case-law on guarantees to creditors, regardless of whether they are provided in the normal bankruptcy procedure or a special procedure for "administrative liquidation", and thus regardless of the legal status of the debtor.
The Court noted that, apart from any difference in the domestic classification between ordinary bankruptcy and "administrative liquidation", the creditors referred to the recovery of their debts from a third party that had to confirm the existence of a debt and make payments from their assets.
With regard to the bankruptcy procedure in general, the Court has always indicated that the dispute exists from the moment the creditor lodges a complaint.
With regard to the procedure for "administrative liquidation", the Court noted that the creditor could request that its claims be included in the list of debts of the liquidated company from the time the liquidator first notified of the verification of the debts of the company subject to liquidation.
Analyzing the specific consequences of this measure in the context of the procedure under consideration, the Court concludes that this genuine dispute about civil law arises from the moment the application is lodged by the creditor. In the present case, the claim was based on a bill of exchange. Accordingly, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable to the present case.
(b) Merits. While recognizing the complexity of the bankruptcy procedure, the Court considers that the total length of the procedure in question, approximately 25 years and six months, was excessive and did not meet the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
DECISION
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention (adopted by six votes "for" at one - "against").
The Court also found that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective domestic remedy by which the applicant could appeal against the lack of consideration of his case within a reasonable time (six votes in favor ).
COMPENSATION
In application of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 24,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage was rejected.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/711-cipoletta-v-italy .
ESLJP presuda od 28. novembra 2017 o slučaju "i Antovich Mirković (Antović i Mirković) protiv Crne Gore" (predstavka N 70838/13).
U 2013. godini podnosiocima predstavke je pružena pomoć u pripremi predstavke. Nakon toga, predstavka je proslijeđena Crnoj Gori.
U slučaju uspešno pregledao žalbu da uspostave CCTV u učionicama Univerziteta zaposlenih u njihovom radnom mestu, sa invazijom njihove privatnosti, što dovodi do fiksnu i reproduktivno dokumentacije ponašanja na radnom mestu. U slučaju kršenja člana 8 Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda.
OKOLNOSTI SLUČAJA
Podnosioci prijava su bili nastavnici univerziteta. Nakon odluke dekana da se uvede video nadzor u velikom broju univerzitetskih učionica, oni su podneli žalbu Agenciji za zaštitu podataka. Agencija je zadovoljio svoju žalbu i naložio uklanjanje kamere, naročito zbog činjenice da se ne pridržava uslova za organizovanje video nadzora definisanog u članu 36. Zakona o zaštiti podataka o ličnosti, jer nije bilo dokaza o bezbednosnu pretnju ljudi i imovine, i dodatne izjave cilj obuke o bezbednosti nije bio uključen u listu zakonskih osnova za video nadzor. Ova odluka su ukinuli sudovi Crne Gore na osnovu toga što je univerzitet javna institucija koja obavlja aktivnosti od javnog interesa, uključujući i obuku. Publika je imala posla kao sudnici ili parlamenta, gde su profesori nikada neće biti sama, tako da ne mogu da se oslone na pravo na poštovanje privatnog života, koji bi mogao da se poremetio. Prikupljeni podaci takođe se ne mogu smatrati ličnim.
PITANJA ZAKONA
Što se tiče usaglašavanja sa članom 8 Konvencije. (a) Primenljivost. Publika univerziteta bila je radno mjesto nastavnika. Tu su ne samo učili učenike, već su imali i interakciju s njima, razvili odnose i oblikovali svoj društveni identitet. Sud je već istakao da tajno video nadzor zaposlenih na radnom mestu može se smatrati značajnim upada u svojim ličnim životima, što dovodi do stalnog i reproduktivno dokumentacije ponašanja na radnom mestu, koji nisu mogli da pobegnu zaposlenima koji su vezani ugovornu obavezu da radi na ovom mestu. Nije bilo osnova da Sud odstupi od ovog zaključka, čak iu slučaju nevsiljivog video nadzora na svom radnom mestu. Pored toga, Sud je takođe istakao da, čak i ako pravila poslodavca u vezi sa ličnom životu zaposlenih u javnom sektoru na radnom mestu su restriktivna, ne mogu da ga smanji na nulu. Posmatranje prava na poštovanje privatnog života nastavilo je da postoji, čak i ako bi to moglo biti restriktivno ukoliko je potrebno. Prikupljeni podaci video nadzorom sporne, odnosi se na "privatnost" podnosilaca i člana 8 Konvencije zbog toga bio primenjiv u ovom predmetu.
(b) zasluga. Važeći zakon (član 36. Zakona o zaštiti podataka o ličnosti) izričito predviđa određene uslove, čiji je postignuće omogućeno praćenje kroz ćelije. Međutim, u ovom slučaju, ovi uslovi nisu ispunjeni, pošto je Agencija za zaštitu ličnih podataka s pravom ustanovila. U tom smislu (u odsustvu razmatranja ovog pitanja od strane sudova u zemlji), Sud nije mogao zaključiti da je mešanje u privatni život podnosilaca izazvane video nadzorom na njihovom radnom mestu nije "propisano zakonom" u smislu člana 8. Konvencije.
ODLUKA
U slučaju da je došlo do povrede zahteva člana 8 Konvencije (usvojeno sa četiri glasa "za" sa tri - "protiv").
KOMPENZACIJA
Prilikom primene člana 41 Konvencije. Sud je dodijelio 1000 eura za nematerijalnu štetu podnosiocima predstavke.
Izvor publikacije: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/712-antovic-i-mirkovic-protiv-crne-gore .
The ECHR judgment of 28 November 2017 in the case of Antovic and Mirkovic v. Montenegro (application No. 70838/13).
In 2013, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Montenegro.
In the case, a complaint was successfully considered on the establishment of hidden CCTV in the university's classrooms for employees at their workplace, for intrusion into their personal lives, involving fixed and reproducible documentation of behavior in the workplace. 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 were teachers of the university. After deciding the dean to introduce video surveillance in a number of university auditoriums, they filed a complaint with the agency for the protection of personal data. The Agency satisfied their complaint and ordered the removal of the cameras, in particular, because the conditions for the organization of video surveillance, provided for in § 36 of the Law on Personal Data Protection, were not respected, since there was no evidence of a security threat to people and property, the goal of safety training was not included in the list of legal grounds for video surveillance. This decision was quashed by the courts of Montenegro on the grounds that the university was a public institution carrying out activities of public interest, including training. The auditoriums were workplaces like a courtroom or a parliament where professors were never alone, so they could not invoke the right to respect for private life that could be violated. The collected data also could not be considered as personal.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. (a) Applicability. The audience of the university was the workplace of the teachers. There they not only taught students, but also interacted with them, developing relationships and shaping their social identity. The Court has already indicated that covert surveillance of employees at their workplace can be seen as a significant intrusion into their personal lives, resulting in a fixed and reproducible documentation of conduct in the workplace that could not be avoided by employees who are bound by a contractual obligation to work in this place. There were no grounds for the Court to depart from this conclusion, even in the case of unobtrusive video surveillance in its workplace. In addition, the Court also pointed out that even if the employer's rules regarding the personal social life of workers in the workplace were restrictive, they could not bring it to naught. Observance of the right to respect for private life continued to exist, even if it could be restrictive if necessary. The data collected by the disputed video surveillance related to the "private life" of the applicants, and Article 8 of the Convention was thus applicable in the present case.
(b) Merits. Applicable law (article 36 of the Personal Data Protection Act) explicitly provided for certain conditions, the achievement of which allowed monitoring through cells. However, in the present case, these conditions were not met, as the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data rightfully established. In this respect (in the absence of consideration of the matter by the courts of the country), the Court could not but conclude that the interference with the privacy of the applicants caused by video surveillance in their workplace was not "prescribed by law" for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention.
DECISION
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (adopted by four votes "for" with three - "against").
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicants.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/713-antovic-and-mirkovic-v-montenegro .
Hotărârea CEDO din 28 noiembrie 2017 în cauza "N. (N.) c. României" (plângerea nr. 59152/08).
În 2008, reclamantul a fost asistat la pregătirea plângerii. Ulterior, plângerea a fost comunicată României.
În acest caz, plângerea reclamantului privind detenția nejustificat de lungă în custodie, lipsa oricărei asistențe efective a fost luată în considerare cu succes. Cazul a implicat o încălcare a cerințelor articolului 5 al Convenției pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale.
CIRCUMSTANȚELE CAUZEI
În ianuarie 2001, a fost deschis un caz penal împotriva lui N. în legătură cu suspiciunea de incest și corupția fiicelor sale minore (procedurile au fost întrerupte în 2002). El a fost spitalizat într-un spital de psihiatrie, în aprilie 2002 instanța a confirmat măsura în absența reclamantului. După modificarea legislației care vizează consolidarea drepturilor persoanelor cu handicap, continuarea legală a detenției reclamantului a fost verificată periodic începând cu septembrie 2007.
Cu toate acestea, reclamantul a rămas într-un spital de psihiatrie, deoarece experții medicali au concluzionat că suferea de schizofrenie paranoidă. În august 2016 Tribunalul districtual a decis că, în principiu, solicitantul ar putea fi evacuate din spital, însă aceasta ar trebui continue să mențină temporar până la o instituție potrivită pentru a fi găsit. În februarie 2017, instanța de primă instanță a solicitat înlocuirea reclamantului cu detenția pentru tratament obligatoriu, dar încercarea de a obține eliberarea lui nu a funcționat.
ASPECTE ALE LEGII
Cu privire la respectarea articolului 5 alineatul (1) din Convenție. Privarea de libertate a solicitantului în domeniul de aplicare al litera „e“ din paragraful 1 al articolului 5 din Convenție, din cauza afecțiunii de care suferă a fost confirmată printr-o serie de examinări medico-legale.
(a) Continuarea reținerii după 2007. Conform legii romane, pentru îngrijirea sănătății mintale o boală psihică ar fi o amenințare pentru societate. În plus, sub „e“ din paragraful 1 al articolului 5 din Convenție presupune că în cazul în care nu prevede tratamentul, reținerea unei persoane cu o tulburare mintală care necesită o justificare specială, având în vedere gravitatea tulburărilor și nevoia de protecție a persoanei sau a altor persoane.
În speță, prima verificare a Curții arestării preventive a reclamantului de Primă Instanță a întemeiat decizia de trimitere la cele două aspecte principale: acuzații penale aduse inițial împotriva reclamantului (incestul și abuzul sexual asupra copiilor), precum și prezența schizofreniei sale paranoide (în funcție de încheierea examenului medical eliberat în Iulie 2007).
În ceea ce privește acuzațiile reclamantului, instanța sa referit doar la materialele prezentate de procuratură. Cu toate acestea, procurorul a refuzat acuzația în legătură cu lipsa dovezilor. Rechizitoriul delincvenței juvenile a condus ulterior la concluzia că cazul a fost închis din cauza lipsei unei autoevaluări adecvate a reclamantului. Această concluzie nu a fost verificată de instanță. În plus, acuzațiile în sine nu au fost examinate de instanță în procedurile contradictorii. În consecință, trimiterea la acestea nu era suficientă pentru a stabili pericolele reclamantului.
În ceea ce privește bolile mintale reclamantului, în loc de a evalua pericolul a reprezentat, Curtea doar referire la concluziile examinării medico-legală (care a recomandat continuarea detenției sale), o abordare care a fost criticată de Curtea Europeană de Justiție. În plus, nici instanța, nici instituțiile medicale nu au raportat nici un act de violență din partea reclamantului în timpul detenției sale. Dimpotrivă, în timpul examinării reclamantului a fost liniștită, în iulie 2007, nu a obiectat la tratament, nu provoca conflicte cu alti pacienti si a demonstrat un nivel scăzut de ostilitate atunci când primesc tratament.
Verificarea ulterioară nu este stabilit dacă solicitantul a reprezentat un pericol potențial, pentru că am folosit aceeași abordare formală și superficială, și nu plângerea reclamantului cu privire la decizia instanței de primă instanță sau de procedura care a inițiat, nu a clarificat această problemă. În plus, nici autoritățile medicale, nici instanța în sine nu au analizat dacă ar putea fi aplicate măsuri alternative.
Prin urmare, în lipsa unei evaluări a pericolului reprezentat de reclamant, detenția sa a avut nici o bază legală și nu a fost justificată în temeiul literei „e“ din paragraful 1 al articolului 5 din Convenție. S-a ridicat, de asemenea întrebări în lumina litera „b“ al paragrafului 1 al articolului 14 din Convenția ONU privind drepturile persoanelor cu handicap (în continuare - CDPD), care prevede că existența unui handicap nu este în nici un caz, nu ar trebui să fie un motiv de închisoare. Deși mai târziu, la întrebarea dacă solicitantul este un pericol, sunt supuse examinării, guvernul pârât nu a dezvăluit informația de fapt, ceea ce a dus la schimbări în evaluarea experților medicali.
(b) A fost necesar să se continue reținerea reclamantului după o decizie judecătorească de al elibera. În decizia sa din august 2016, subliniind necesitatea de a pune capăt detenției reclamantului, instanța districtuală a adoptat o măsură fără să precizeze temeiul juridic adecvat pentru aceasta.
În plus, după decizia finală privind februarie 2017 eliberarea reclamantului statul pârât nu a specificat procedura aplicabilă situației solicitantului, care ar permite, în primul rând, pentru a evalua nevoile sale înainte de eliberarea sau transferul la un alt centru care satisface aceste nevoi. Posibilitatea eliberării treptate sau condiționate nu a fost menționată mai devreme. Deși reclamantul a fost de acord să rămână în custodie până în momentul în care serviciile sociale vor găsi o soluție adecvată pentru situația sa, aceasta ar trebui să garanteze asigure o protecție corespunzătoare pentru a se asigura posibilitatea eliberării, fără întârzieri nejustificate.
Putem presupune că deciziile de mai sus s-au bazat pe practica, din ce în ce a adoptat la nivel internațional, care susține tratamentul și îngrijirea persoanelor cu handicap în comunitate, dacă este posibil (a se vedea. Articolul 19 din CRPD, Liniile directoare privind drepturile persoanelor cu Comitetul handicap și Strategia pentru Consiliul Europei pentru persoanele cu handicap 2017 - 2023 ani). Cu toate acestea, punerea sa în aplicare cauzează probleme suplimentare, în conformitate cu articolul 5 alineatul (1) din Convenție. În practică, reclamantul nu a fost efectiv eliberat. În orice caz, a fost necesară o evaluare riguroasă a nevoilor sale specifice și adoptarea măsurilor adecvate în ceea ce privește protecția socială. În plus, eforturile autorităților naționale s-au dovedit inutile din cauza lipsei unei instituții care să o accepte. Această stare de fapt reflectă realitățile actuale din România, după cum a arătat anterior de către alte organisme internaționale (cum ar fi Comitetul european pentru prevenirea torturii și a tratamentelor inumane sau degradante sau pedepselor (CPT) sau Comisarul pentru Drepturile Omului, Consiliul Europei).
În consecință, detenția continuă a reclamantului după decizia din 29 august 2016 a fost arbitrară.
DECIZIE
În caz de încălcare a cerințelor articolului 5 al Convenției (în unanimitate) a fost comisă.
În ceea ce privește respectarea articolului 5 alineatul (4) din Convenție. Punerea în aplicare a legislației românești relevante, care a intrat în vigoare în septembrie 2006, a fost insuficiente pentru a asigura drepturile solicitantului.
(a) Natura periodică a inspecțiilor. controale Instanțele au nevoie detenția reclamantului au fost separate printr-o perioadă de 15 luni (februarie 2015 - mai 2016), 16 luni (octombrie 2008 - februarie 2010), și chiar trei ani și opt luni (aprilie 2010 - decembrie 2013) . Nu au existat motive excepționale pentru a justifica astfel de întârzieri. În plus, aceste perioade au depășit în mod semnificativ termenele prevăzute de legislația țării (șase luni și apoi 12 luni începând cu 2014).
De asemenea, Curtea a constatat cu îngrijorare practica de evaluare retrospectivă a necesității continuării deținerii pe baza informațiilor medicale obținute cu mult timp înainte (de exemplu, mai mult de unul, doi sau trei ani mai devreme), nu reflectă neapărat starea reținut în timpul de luare a deciziilor. O astfel de întârziere între examinarea medico-legală și decizia ulterioară pe cont propriu ar fi contrară principiului de bază al Articolului 5 al Convenției, și anume de a proteja indivizii împotriva arbitrariului.
În cele din urmă, în ceea ce privește întârzierile menționate mai sus pot fi explicate prin necesitatea de a obține rezultatele cerute de examinare medico-legală, instanța de judecată, se pare că nu sunt interesați de evoluția lucrărilor experților și nu au folosit puterile pentru a aplica sancțiuni experților, nu îndeplinește funcția de încheiere reprezentare. În consecință, cerința "verificării imediate" nu a fost acordată.
(b) asistență juridică. Reclamantul, care suferea de boli psihice, să-l păstrați într-un comportament satisfăcător al procesului, a folosit serviciile avocatului desemnat în mod oficial. Cu toate acestea, în fiecare proces a fost reprezentat de diverși avocați cu care nu a putut să se prezinte și să se întâlnească înainte de proces. În cele mai multe cazuri, avocații săi au preferat continuarea detenției sale sau au lăsat problema la discreția instanțelor. Nu se vorbește despre modul în care avocații ar trebui să acționeze în astfel de cazuri, atunci când acestea sunt persoana cu boli psihice, Curtea a ajuns la concluzia că nu a existat nici o prevedere cu privire la orice asistență eficientă.
DECIZIE
În caz de încălcare a cerințelor articolului 5 al Convenției (în unanimitate) a fost comisă.
În aplicarea articolului 46 al Convenției. Măsuri de natură individuală. Pentru a compensa consecințele încălcării drepturilor acordate reclamantului în conformitate cu articolul 5 din Convenție, autoritățile ar trebui să îndeplinească fără întârziere decizia definitivă a Tribunalului Districtual să-l elibereze, în condiții care să răspundă nevoilor lor.
Măsuri de natură generală. În ceea ce privește deficiențele identificate în prezenta cauză, care ar putea duce la depunerea de alte plângerile formulate în viitor, Curtea a recomandat ca autoritățile statului pârât a stabilit măsurile generale pentru a se asigura că detenția persoanelor în spitalele de psihiatrie a fost legală, rezonabil și nu arbitrar și că orice persoană poate formula o acțiune, oferindu-le garanții adecvate pentru a asigura o hotărâre judecătorească rapidă cu privire la legalitatea detenției lor în Stra s.
COMPENSARE
În aplicarea articolului 41 al Convenției. Curtea a acordat reclamantei suma de 30.000 de euro pentru prejudiciul moral.
Sursa de publicare: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/714-n-c-romaniei .
The ECHR judgment of 28 November 2017 in the case "N. (N.) v. Romania" (application No. 59152/08).
In 2008, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Romania.
In the case, the applicant's complaint on the unreasonably long detention in custody, on the lack of any effective assistance was successfully considered. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
In January 2001, a criminal case was opened against N. on suspicion of incest and the corruption of his underage daughters (proceedings were discontinued in 2002). He was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital, in April 2002 the court upheld the measure in the absence of the applicant. After changes in legislation aimed at strengthening the rights of persons with disabilities, the lawful continuation of the applicant's detention was periodically checked beginning in September 2007.
However, the applicant remained in a psychiatric hospital, as medical experts concluded that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In August 2016, the district court decided that, in principle, the applicant could have been discharged from the hospital, but he should continue to be kept temporarily until an institution suitable for him was found. In February 2017, the court of first instance instructed to replace the applicant with detention for compulsory treatment, but attempts to obtain his release did not work.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The applicant's deprivation of liberty belonged to the scope of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention, since his psychiatric disorders were confirmed by a number of forensic examinations.
(a) Continuation of detention after 2007. According to Romanian law, for mental health care a mental illness was to be a threat to society. In addition, subparagraph "e" of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention suggested that, if no treatment was provided for, the detention of a person with a mental disorder required special substantiation in view of the severity of the disorders and the need to protect the person or others.
In the present case, at the first examination of the applicant's detention, the court of first instance based its decision on two main aspects: the criminal charges initially brought against the applicant (incest and molestation of minors) and the presence of paranoid schizophrenia (according to the medical examination report issued in July 2007).
Concerning the applicant's accusations, the court only referred to the materials submitted by the prosecution. However, the prosecutor refused the accusation in connection with the lack of evidence. The indictment of the juvenile delinquency later led to the conclusion that the case was closed due to the lack of adequate self-assessment of the applicant. This conclusion was not verified by the court. In addition, the charges themselves were not examined by the court in the adversarial proceedings. Accordingly, the reference to them was not sufficient to establish the dangers of the applicant.
As for the applicant's mental illness, instead of assessing the danger that he represented, the court simply referred to the conclusions of the forensic medical examination (which recommended the continuation of his detention), an approach that had already been criticized by the European Court of Justice. In addition, neither the court nor the medical institutions reported any acts of violence by the applicant during his detention. On the contrary, during the examination in July 2007 the applicant behaved calmly, did not object to treatment, did not provoke conflicts with other patients and demonstrated a low level of hostility when receiving treatment.
Subsequent inspections did not establish whether the applicant represented a potential danger, since the same formal and superficial approach was used, and neither the applicant's complaints about the first-instance court's decisions nor the proceedings that he initiated did clarify this issue. In addition, neither the medical authorities nor the court itself considered whether alternative measures could be applied.
Accordingly, in the absence of an assessment of the danger posed by the applicant, his detention did not have a legal basis and was not justified in accordance with subparagraph (e) of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention. It also raised questions in the light of subparagraph (b) of article 14, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which states that the existence of a disability should not in any case become a ground for deprivation of liberty. Although subsequently the issue of whether the applicant posed a danger was the subject of verification, the authorities of the respondent State did not disclose the factual information that led to changes in the assessment of medical experts.
(b) Was it necessary to continue the detention of the applicant after a judicial decision to release him. In its decision of August 2016, stressing the need to terminate the applicant's detention, the district court took a measure without specifying the appropriate legal basis for it.
Furthermore, following the final decision of the applicant's release in February 2017 on the release of the applicant, the respondent Government did not indicate a procedure applicable to the applicant's situation that would allow, first of all, to assess his needs before being released or transferred to another center that meets those needs. The possibility of gradual or conditional release was not mentioned earlier. Although the applicant has agreed to remain in detention until the social services find an adequate solution to his situation, he must be provided with adequate safeguards to ensure the possibility of release without undue delay.
It can be assumed that the aforementioned decisions have been based on practices that are increasingly asserted at the international level, which supports the treatment and care of persons with disabilities within the community, if possible (see article 19 CRPD, Guidelines of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the Council of Europe Disability Strategy 2017 - 2023 years). However, its implementation causes additional problems in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention. In practice, the applicant was not actually released. In any case, a rigorous assessment of its specific needs and the adoption of appropriate measures in terms of social protection were required. In addition, the efforts of the domestic authorities proved useless due to the lack of an institution that could accept it. This state of affairs reflected the current realities in Romania, as previously indicated by other international bodies (such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) or the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights).
Consequently, the applicant's continued detention after the decision of 29 August 2016 was arbitrary.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.
Concerning compliance with article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention. The implementation of the relevant legislation of Romania, which entered into force in September 2006, was inadequate to secure the rights of the applicant.
(a) Periodic nature of inspections. The courts' checks of the need for the applicant's detention were separated by periods of 15 months (February 2015-May 2016), 16 months (October 2008-February 2010) and even three years and eight months (April 2010-December 2013) . There were no exceptional reasons for justifying such delays. In addition, these periods significantly exceeded the deadlines provided by the laws of the country (six months, and then 12 months from 2014).
The Court also noted with concern the retrospective assessment of the need to continue detention on the basis of medical information received long before (for example, more than one, two or three years earlier), which did not necessarily reflect the state of the detainee at the time of the decision. This delay between the forensic examination and the subsequent decision in itself could be contrary to the principle underlying Article 5 of the Convention, namely the protection of persons against arbitrariness.
Finally, as far as the aforementioned delays could be explained by the need to obtain the required forensic reports, the court did not appear to be interested in the work of the experts and did not use its authority to impose sanctions on experts not fulfilling the duty of presenting an opinion. Accordingly, the requirement of "immediate verification" was not granted.
(b) Legal assistance. The applicant, who suffered from mental illnesses that prevented him from satisfactorily conducting the trial, used the services of an officially appointed counsel. However, in every trial he was represented by various lawyers with whom he could not confer and meet before the trial. In most cases, his lawyers favored the continuation of his detention, or left the matter to the discretion of the courts. Without commenting on how lawyers should act in such cases when they represent a person with mental disorders, the Court concludes that there was no provision of any effective assistance.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.
In the application of Article 46 of the Convention. Measures of an individual nature. To compensate for the consequences of the violation of the rights granted to the applicant under Article 5 of the Convention, the authorities must comply without delay with the District Court's final decision on his release in conditions that meet his needs.
Measures of a general nature. With regard to the deficiencies identified in the present case that might lead to the filing of other justified complaints in the future, the Court recommended that the respondent Government establish general measures to ensure that the detention of persons in psychiatric hospitals is lawful, reasonable and not arbitrary, and that any person could initiate proceedings by providing them with adequate safeguards to ensure an immediate judicial decision on the legality of their detention s.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/715-n-v-romania .
