Новости от 30 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 30.08.2018 17:28

 

The applicants successfully complained about the fact that they were evicted from the apartment. The case violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

In 2015, the applicants were assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

In their complaint, two applicants (husband and wife) who were bona fide purchasers complained that they had been evicted from the apartment that they had bought in the name of the wife from a person who did not have rights to it, but this was not known to the applicants when conclusion of the contract of sale.

On 26 September 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to protection of property) against the applicant and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 5,000 euro in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

The ECHR judgment of 26 September 2017 on the case "Dzhantayev and Yakubova v. Russia" (аpplication No. 25675/15).


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/732-dzhantayev-and-yakubova-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint that his detention for extradition for more than two months was unlawful and that there was no effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

 

In 2009, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant, who is a citizen of Uzbekistan, complained that his detention for extradition for more than two months was illegal and that there was no effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention.

 

On 25 July 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 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of July 25, 2017 in the case "Yakovenko v. Russia" (аpplication No. 48528/09).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/733-yakovenko-c-russia .

 

 

The applicant's complaint that he had been ill-treated by law enforcement officers and the lack of an effective investigation of this circumstance was successfully considered in the case. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

 

In 2009, 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 been ill-treated by law enforcement officials and that there was no effective investigation of this circumstance.

 

On 25 July 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 and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 20,000 euros compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 25 July 2017 in the Smolentsev v. Russia case (аpplication no. 46349/09).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/734-smolentsev-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the complaint of the applicants for eviction from the apartment, which they purchased from a person who does not have rights to her, was successfully considered. The violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights was committed in the case.

 

In 2010, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaint, the applicants, who were bona fide purchasers, complained about their eviction from the apartment they had purchased from a person who did not have rights to her, but this was not known to the applicants when buying an apartment.

 

On 25 July 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicants, 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 each applicant EUR 7,500 as compensation for moral damage.

 

ECHR Judgment of 25 July 2017 in the case of Shvidkiye v. Russia (аpplication No. 69820/10).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/735-shvidkiye-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint that he was not provided with adequate medical care in connection with his spinal disease and that he did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard. Violations of the requirements of articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights were committed in the case.

 

In 2012, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant, who served a sentence in a penal colony, complained that he was not provided with adequate medical care in connection with his spinal disease and that he did not have an effective domestic legal remedy in this regard.

 

On 25 July 2017, on the application lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 25 July 2017 in the Bulava v. Russia case (аpplication No. 62812/12).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/736-bulava-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicant successfully complained of a violation of the principle of legal certainty due to the cancellation of the court decision of the Russian Federation in the procedure of supervision. The violation of the requirement of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights was committed in the case.

 

In 2007, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant, who was the liquidator of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, complained of a violation of the principle of legal certainty because of the cancellation of the court decision of the Russian Federation court in the order of supervision.

 

On 25 July 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, 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 the applicant 1,500 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

Judgment of the ECHR of 25 July 2017 in the case "Korobeynikov v. Russia" (аpplication No. 6131/07).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/737-korobeynikov-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint about the unreasonable length of pre-trial detention and the fact that his appeal on the legality of pre-trial detention was conducted in his absence. 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.

 

In 2014, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant complained about the unreasonable length of pre-trial detention and that his appeal on the legality of pre-trial detention was conducted in his absence.

 

On 25 July 2017, on a complaint 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 person) and ordered the respondent State to pay 2,500 euros compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 25 July 2017 in the case of Dvoretskiy v. Russia (аpplication No. 57426/14).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/738-dvoretskiy-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicants successfully complained that their right to freedom of assembly was limited due to their detention for organizing round-the-clock duty on the market until the issue of the legality of transferring the land to a private company for the construction of a shopping center and for ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and on the lack of an effective investigation of this circumstance. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights.

 

In 2010, the applicants were assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaint, the applicants (14 people) who were either individual entrepreneurs who had been operating in the market of Voronezh or worked there as sellers complained that their right to freedom of assembly was limited due to their detention for organizing a 24-hour duty on the market to clarifying the issue of the legality of the transfer of land to a private company for the construction of a shopping center. Some of the applicants complained of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and the lack of an effective investigation of this circumstance.

 

On 25 July 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) in its material and procedural aspects and 11 of the Convention (right to freedom of assembly and association) applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants 64,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 7,500 to 12,000 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 25 July 2017 in the case "Annenkov and Others v. Russia" (аpplication No. 31475/10).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/739-annenkov-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint that he was not provided with adequate medical care during the period of detention and for lack of effective remedies that the detention measure was not substantiated and the complaint about the detention order was not considered within a reasonable time. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, of Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

 

In 2011, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the complainant, suffering from a number of diseases (including diabetes mellitus, chronic pancreatitis), complained that he was not provided with adequate medical care during the period of detention, as well as for the lack of effective remedies in this regard, and that the measure of imprisonment in the form of detention was not substantiated, and the complaint about the decision on his detention was not examined within a reasonable time.

 

On 25 July 2017, on the application 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), Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person), Article 13 Of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 19,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

ECHR Judgment of July 25, 2017 in the case "Yankovskiy v. Russia (" Yankovskiy v. Russia) "(аpplication No. 24051/11).

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/740-yankovskiy-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicant's complaint on the long-term non-enforcement of the court decision of the Russian Federation court and on the impossibility of using his property as a result of this was successfully considered. 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 2003, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant, who was the liquidator of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, complained about the long-term non-enforcement of the court decision of the Russian Federation court and the impossibility of using his property as a result of this.

 

On 25 July 2017, on the application lodged by the applicant, 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 applicant EUR 4,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 25 July 2017 in the case "Babynin v. Russia" (аpplication No. 12239/03).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/741-babynin-c-russia .

 

 

hotărârea CEDO din 28 noiembrie 2017, pe cazul "Dornyanu (DORNEANU) împotriva România" (plângere N 55089/13).

 

În 2013, solicitantul a fost asistat la pregătirea plângerii. Ulterior, plângerea a fost comunicată României.

 

În cazul cu succes revizuite o plângere cu privire la condițiile inumane de detenție a unei persoane care suferă de cancer, transferurile repetate de la o instituție la alta, pe de îngrijire și asistență inadecvată, pentru o lungă închisoare, în ciuda bolii incurabile. În cazul unei încălcări a articolului 3 din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANȚELE CAUZEI

 


Reclamantul, care a fost judecat în 2002, a fost condamnat în februarie 2013 și condamnat la trei ani și patru luni de închisoare. Deși în noiembrie 2012 a fost diagnosticat cu cancer de prostată, a fost închis în martie 2013 pentru a-și executa sentința. Reclamantul a solicitat imediat suspendarea pedepsei și a repetat-o ​​de mai multe ori. În iunie 2013, instanța a admis cererea sa pe perioada de trei luni, dar Curtea de Apel a decis că reclamantul are nevoie de asistență medicală pot fi furnizate în închisoare în august 2013. Pentru a efectua un tratament, reclamantul a fost transferat în mod repetat în diferite spitale și închisori, adesea pentru o distanță foarte semnificativă. El a fost înlocuit cu chimioterapie cu îngrijiri paliative și a murit în spital în decembrie 2013.

 


ASPECTE ALE LEGII

 


Cu privire la respectarea articolului 3 al Convenției (aspecte de fond). (a) Condiții generale de detenție. Condițiile în care a fost deținut reclamantul i-au supus greutăților care depășesc nivelul inevitabil al suferinței inerente detenției. Deși lungimea detenției sale, când avea mai puțin de 3 metri pătrați. spatiu personal metru a fost camere scurte, convenționale (3 până la 4 mp. metri) nu au fost adaptate la boala sa severa, de la sfârșitul vieții, este orb și surd, și suferea de dureri în oase.

 

(b) traduceri repetate. În ciuda faptului că majoritatea transferurilor au fost justificate din motive medicale, rămâne faptul că aceste instituții erau departe unul de celălalt și, în unele cazuri, de sute de kilometri. Având în vedere deteriorarea stării de sănătate a ordinelor repetate ale reclamantului, se pare că a provocat și a intensificat sentimentul de anxietate cu privire la caracterul adecvat al diferitelor izolatori îndeplinesc cerințele medicale pentru îngrijirea și păstrarea contactului cu familia sa. Intensitatea acestor sarcini a depășit, de asemenea, nivelul inevitabil al suferinței inerente în detenție.

 

(c) Calitatea îngrijirii și îngrijirii. La momentul admiterii sale în închisoare, reclamantul a suferit deja o boală cu un prognostic fatal pe termen scurt. În timp ce el a fost tratat în conformitate cu sfatul medicilor, se pare că autoritățile nu au considerat posibilitatea de tratament într-un singur loc, care ar fi salvat solicitantul pe mai multe traduceri, sau cel puțin a limita numărul de transferuri și efectul lor negativ asupra bunăstării pacientului. În plus, în ultimele stadii ale bolii, atunci când nu a existat nici o speranță de remitere, stres inerente în viața de închisoare, ar putea avea implicații pentru speranța de viață a unui deținut și starea sa de sănătate.

 

În cazul în care solicitantul este atât de slăbit fizic și mental, care nu se mai putea efectua activități zilnice de bază, fără asistență, el a fost numit pentru a asista deținut. Nu există nici o dovadă că deținutul, care a fost de acord să ajute solicitantul cu expertiza dreptul de a asista persoana terminala bolnav sau că reclamantul a primit sprijin moral sau socială adecvată și consiliere eficientă, deși sa constatat că el suferea de depresie.

 

(d) Închisoare pe termen lung în condiții inadecvate de detenție. Reclamantul a fost întemnițat, în ciuda bolii incurabile și a suferit consecințele de a lua droguri puternice în condiții dificile de închisoare.

 

În acest context, orice lipsă de diligență din partea autorităților pune persoana în cauză într-o poziție mai vulnerabilă și a făcut imposibilă menținerea demnitatea ca boala sa se duce la inevitabil fatală. Pe măsură ce boala reclamantului a progresat, era extrem de dificil pentru el să o ducă în închisoare. Astfel, autoritățile statului pârât au trebuit să ia măsuri speciale din motive umanitare.

 

În ceea ce privește fezabilitatea reținerii pe termen lung a solicitantului, Curtea nu poate gândurile înlocui aprecierea instanțelor statului pârât, dar, cu toate acestea, el a menționat că Curtea de Apel nu a condus motive legate de amenințarea că eliberarea reclamantului ar prezenta în termeni cu privire la protecția societății, luând în considerare starea de sănătate a solicitantului. El a fost condamnat pentru prima dată și a servit deja o treime din pedeapsă relativ ușoară, comportamentul său în timpul procesului a fost bun, el a fost acordat în condițiile cele mai favorabile închisoare, și luând în considerare starea de amenințare la adresa sănătății, care va continua să se angajeze în activități criminale, ar putea fi minime numai.

 

Guvernul statului pârât nu a examinat problema dacă reclamantul ar fi putut fi practic în închisoare în condițiile în care se plânge. Curtea de Apel a subliniat că tratamentul prescris ar putea fi furnizate în cursul detenției, dar nu a luat în considerare condițiile și modalitățile practice pentru adoptarea unui astfel de medicament puternic în situația specială a solicitantului, posibilitatea transferului său la diferite închisori și spitale, distanța dintre aceste instituții, numărul spitalelor , în care a acționat pentru tratamentul sau influența unei combinații a acestor factori asupra stării sale deja extrem de vulnerabile. Ținând cont de circumstanțele excepționale ale prezentei cauze, aceste condiții urmau să fie examinate, în cazul în care numai din motive umanitare, pentru a evalua dacă starea de sănătate a reclamantului este compatibil cu condițiile de detenție.

 

Cu toate acestea, argumentele care nu au fost prezentate, că autoritățile statului pârât nu a fost posibil să se examineze aceste circumstanțe excepționale, în ceea ce privește din motive umanitare urgente, acestea sunt pedepsiți. Dimpotrivă, procedurile utilizate au acordat prioritate formalităților, împiedicând astfel reclamantul care a murit să-și petreacă ultimele zile cu demnitate. În plus, durata procedurii de suspendare sentința a fost excesivă pentru pacient bolnav în fază terminală și răspunsurile administrației închisorii la cererea reclamantului pentru ajutor în asigurarea eliberării sale au indicat considerare evaziunea a situației sale.

 

Astfel, condițiile de detenție pe care reclamantul trebuia să le suporte cu o boală incurabilă au reprezentat un tratament inuman.

 


DECIZIE

 


În caz de încălcare a cerințelor articolului 3 al Convenției (în unanimitate) a fost comisă.

 


COMPENSARE

 


În aplicarea articolului 41 al Convenției. Curtea a acordat fiului reclamantului 9 000 EUR pentru prejudiciul moral, cererea de despăgubire pentru prejudiciul material a fost respinsă.

 

 

 

Sursa de publicare: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/726-dornyanu-impotriva-romania .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 28 November 2017 in the case of Dorneanu v. Romania (application No. 55089/13).

 

In 2013, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Romania.

 

The case was successfully considered a complaint about the inhuman conditions of detention of a person suffering from cancer, to repeated transfers from one institution to another, to improper care and assistance, to long-term imprisonment, despite an incurable disease. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant, who was prosecuted in 2002, was convicted in February 2013 and sentenced to three years and four months in prison. Although in November 2012 he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, he was imprisoned in March 2013 to serve his sentence. The applicant immediately applied for suspension of the sentence and repeated it several times. In June 2013, the court granted his application for a period of three months, but in August 2013 the Court of Appeal decided that the medical assistance necessary to the applicant could be provided in prison. To conduct treatment, the applicant was repeatedly transferred to various hospitals and prisons, often for a very significant distance. He was replaced by chemotherapy with palliative care, and he died in hospital in December 2013.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 3 of the Convention (substantive aspect). (a) General conditions of detention. The conditions in which the applicant was held subjected him to hardships that went beyond the inevitable level of suffering inherent in detention. Although the length of his detention, when he had less than 3 square meters. meter of personal space, was short, the usual chambers (from 3 to 4 square meters) were not adapted for his severe illness, because at the end of his life he was blind and deaf and suffered from bone pain.

 

(b) Repeated translations. Despite the fact that most transfers were justified by medical grounds, it remains a fact that these institutions were far from each other, and in some cases hundreds of kilometers. Given the deterioration of the complainant's health, repeated translations appear to have caused and heightened his anxiety about the suitability of various insulators, the fulfillment of medical requirements for his treatment and the preservation of contact with the family. The intensity of such burdens also exceeded the inevitable level of suffering inherent in detention.

 

(c) Quality of care and care. At the time of his admission to prison, the applicant already suffered from a disease with a fatal short-term prognosis. Although he was treated according to the instructions of the doctors, it seems that the state authorities did not consider the possibility of implementing the treatment in one place, which would save the applicant from many transfers or at least limit the number of transfers and their detrimental impact on the patient's well-being. In addition, in the last stages of the disease, when there was no longer any hope of a remission, the stress inherent in prison life could have consequences for the life expectancy of the prisoner and the state of his health.

 

When the applicant was so weak physically and psychologically that he could no longer perform basic domestic activities without assistance, a cellmate was appointed to assist him. There is no evidence that a prisoner who agreed to help the applicant was qualified to assist an incurable sick person or that the applicant received adequate moral or social support or effective psychological counseling, although it was found that he was suffering from depression.

 

(d) Long-term imprisonment in inadequate conditions of detention. The applicant was imprisoned, despite the incurable disease and suffering from the consequences of taking strong drugs in difficult prison conditions.

 

In this context, any lack of diligence on the part of the authorities put the person concerned in an even more vulnerable position and made it impossible to maintain dignity, since his illness was leading to an inevitable fatal outcome. As the applicant's illness progressed, it was extremely difficult for him to carry her in prison. Thus, the authorities of the respondent State had to take special measures for humanitarian reasons.

 

With regard to the desirability of prolonged detention of the applicant, the Court can not substitute for its opinion the assessment of the courts of the respondent State, but nevertheless, he noted that the Court of Appeal did not give reasons for the threat that the applicant's release might represent from the point of view view of the protection of society, taking into account the state of health of the applicant. He was convicted for the first time and had already served a third of relatively mild punishment, his behavior during the trial was good, he was granted the most favorable prison regime, and given his health condition, the threat that he would continue to engage in criminal activities could only be minimal.

 

The Government of the respondent State did not examine the question of whether the applicant could have been practically in prison under the conditions complained of. The Court of Appeal indicated that the prescribed treatment could be provided during detention, but did not consider the conditions and practical measures for taking such potent drugs in the particular situation of the applicant, the possibility of transferring him to various prisons and hospitals, the distance between these institutions, the number of hospitals , in which he acted for the treatment, or the influence of a combination of these factors on his already highly vulnerable state. Given the exceptional nature of the circumstances of the present case, these circumstances should have been investigated, if only for humanitarian reasons, to assess whether the applicant's state of health was compatible with the conditions of his detention.

 

At the same time, it was not argued that it was impossible for the respondent Government to consider these exceptional circumstances, with due regard to the urgent humanitarian considerations that they entailed. On the contrary, the procedures used gave priority to formalities, thus preventing the dying applicant from spending the last days with dignity. In addition, the length of the proceedings to suspend the serving of the sentence was excessive for the terminally ill patient, and the responses of the prison administration to the applicant's requests for assistance in securing his release indicated an evasion of his situation.

 

Thus, the conditions of detention that the applicant had to endure with an incurable disease amounted to inhuman treatment.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant's son EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage was rejected.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/727-dorneanu-v-romania .

 

 

Presuda Europskog suda od 23. studenoga 2017. u predmetu Grba protiv Hrvatske (zahtjeva br. 47074/12).

 

Tijekom 2012. godine, podnositelj zahtjeva je pomagao u pripremi pritužbe. Nakon toga, zahtjeva je priopćen Hrvatskoj.

 

U tom je slučaju uspješno razmatran prigovor podnositelja zahtjeva o njegovu uvjerenju o krivotvorenju valute nakon operacije tajnih policija. Slučaj je uključivao kršenje zahtjeva članka 6. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda, članak 8. Konvencije u vezi s prešutnim nadzorom podnositelja zahtjeva.

 

 

 

OKOLNOSTI PREDMETA

 


Podnositelj zahtjeva je osuđen zbog četiri epizode krivotvorenja novca, kada je prodaja lažnih eura neslužbeni policije. On je uložio žalbu protiv presude prvostupanjskog suda, ističući posebno da nisu ispravno bavila okolnostima policijske poticanja. Njegove su pritužbe odbijene.

 

Europski sud, podnositelj zahtjeva žalio, osobito na poticanje i korištenje dokaza dobivenih kao rezultat njegovih kriminalnih postupaka u njegovom slučaju.

 


PITANJA PRAVA

 


Što se tiče poštivanja članka 6. stavka 1. Konvencije. Korištenje operativnih metoda, uključujući i organizaciju javne vlasti brojnim nezakonitim transakcijama s osumnjičenim, je priznata i valjani način istražuje zločine kada je kazneno djelo nije pojedinačni izolirani slučaj, ali i dalje kazneno djelo. U praksi, to operativna metoda može biti usmjeren na stjecanje povjerenja osobi utvrditi razmjere svoje kriminalne aktivnosti ili identificirati izvor većeg zločinačke organizacije, odnosno otkrivanje većeg kruga kriminala.

 

Međutim, ovisno o djelovanju opće zabrane poticanja neizgovorene službenici pokušali istražiti tijeku kriminalne aktivnosti u pasivnom načinu i nema takav utjecaj poticanje na počinjenje ozbiljniji zločin od onog koji je već planirano da nema takve poticanje. Iz toga slijedi da, u pitanjima koja se odnose na korištenje ove kirurške metode produljenje istrage treba opravdati valjanim razlozima, poput potrebe da se osigura dovoljno dokaza za osudu, steknu bolje razumijevanje prirode i opsega kriminalnih aktivnosti ili sumnje otkrivanja širokom rasponu djela. U nedostatku tih razloga, tijela javne vlasti može se smatrati sudjelovanjem u aktivnostima koje nepravilno proširio opseg i opseg zločina i može biti nepravedno podvrgnuti optužene povećane kazne u propisanom rasponu kazne za kazneno djelo ili pogoršati. Unatoč činjenici da je, u pravilu, u pitanje prikladnost kazne ne spadaju u djelokrug Konvencije, kao stvar fer primjene kazne treba da stane na zločin koji je okrivljenik zapravo planirao počiniti. U takvim situacijama, iako to ne bi bilo nerazumno osudu čovjeka, ne bi bilo fer da ga kazni za dio kriminalne aktivnosti koja je rezultat ponašanja od strane državnih tijela.

 

Stranke nije sporno da je podnositelj zahtjeva sudjelovao u četiri susreta, u kojima je on bio u mogućnosti staviti u promet znatnu količinu krivotvorenih eura kroz prodaju svojih neslužbenih policije. Prva transakcija je rezultat nezakonitog osobnog namjernog ponašanja podnositelja zahtjeva, a nema razloga vjerovati da on ne bi stavio u optjecaj krivotvorenog novca u neko drugo vrijeme, ako se, umjesto da policajac prilazi „redovite” kupca.

 

Međutim, nije bilo uvjerljiv dokaz o tome tko je preuzeo inicijativu za organizaciju sljedećeg sastanka između podnositelja zahtjeva i prešutnu suradnika. Nije bilo naznaka da je tijekom relevantnog razdoblja podnositelj je prodaju krivotvorene valute nikome osim djelatnika neizgovoreno. Tijekom domaćem postupku neizgovorena osoblje nije mogao objasniti zašto je podnositelj zahtjeva nije bio u pritvoru nakon prvog ilegalnog prebacivanja eura, odnosno motivi odluke napravio brojne nezakonite transakcije. Dakle, to nije jasno, u skladu s oblikom praktične smjernice, ako je to, oni djelovali. Slučaj nije sadržavala informacije o tome Da li daljnje akcije tužena država kako bi se osiguralo da se dokaze da su potrebne mjere su poduzete za procesuiranje nezakonite poslovne poduzeća za krivotvorenja novca, a koji bi mogao opravdati žalbu na način rada, uključujući i organizaciju brojnih nezakonite transakcije s podnositeljem zahtjeva.

 

Budući da je nemoguće utvrditi s razumnim stupnjem sigurnosti da li je podnositelj zahtjeva bio žrtva poticanja na kršenje članka 6. Konvencije, važno je da provjerite postupak ocjenjivanja argument za poticanje u ovom slučaju, pružanje adekvatne zaštite zaštite prava.

 

Podnositelj zahtjeva iznio je dokaziv argument za poticanje. Nadležna kazneni sudovi morali uzeti u obzir pitanje zašto je policija odlučila pokrenuti operaciju, koja je imala dokazni materijal na raspolaganju, a ono što bi ona u interakciji s podnositeljem zahtjeva. To je osobito važno s obzirom na nedostatak odgovarajuće kontrole od strane istražnog suca kada daje prešutnu suglasnost na ovaj rad i kontradiktornih objašnjenja policajcima u civilu na proces donošenja odluka za provođenje tajnih operacija.

 

Provjera ponašanja policajcima u civilu, nacionalni sudovi u većini slučajeva ograničena na saznate da li je Zakon neizgovorene zaposlenih na temelju odobrenja istražnog suca. Vrhovni sud je ponovio i podržala stajalištu nižih sudova i izbjegao temeljitu analizu i dati motivaciju koja pripada prihvaćanje ili odbijanje navoda podnositelja zahtjeva da je sklon sudjelovati u narednom nezakonite transakcije.

 

S obzirom na gore navedeno, sudovi tužene države nije ispunila svoju obvezu da djelotvorno rješavanje tvrdnju podnositelja zahtjeva o poticanja, kako to zahtijeva ispitnog postupka u odnosu poticanja u skladu sa stavkom 1. članka 6. Konvencije. Prema tome, postupak odlučivanja, koji je uključen nametanje teže kazne za podnositelja zahtjeva ponovio stavljanje u promet krivotvorenih valute, ne zadovoljava zahtjeve pravednosti. To ne znači da je on pogrešno osuđen za proizvodnju krivotvorenog novca, već da su hrvatski sudovi nisu utvrditi je li ograničenje je proširila svoje kriminalne aktivnosti, kao rezultat njegovog sudjelovanja u narednim nezakonite transakcije kao posljedica nepravilnog ponašanja od strane vlasti.

 


ODLUKA

 


Povreda zahtjeva iz članka 6. Konvencije (jednoglasno) učinjena je.

 

Sud je također utvrdio da je došlo do povrede članka 8. Konvencije u vezi s tajnim nadzorom podnositelja zahtjeva.

 


NAKNADA

 


U primjeni članka 41. Konvencije. Sud je podnositelju zahtjeva nagrađivao 1.500 EUR na ime nematerijalne štete.

 

 

 

Izvor publikacije: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/728-grba-protiv-hrvatske .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 23 November 2017 in the case of Grba v. Croatia (application No. 47074/12).

 

In 2012, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Croatia.

 

In the case, the applicant's complaint on his conviction for counterfeiting currency after the operation by secret police agents was successfully considered. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 8 of the Convention in connection with the tacit supervision of the applicant.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant was convicted of four episodes of counterfeiting currency when he was selling counterfeit euros to unofficial police officers. He appealed against the verdict of the court of first instance, indicating, in particular, that the circumstances of the incitement by the police were not adequately examined. His complaints were rejected.

 

In the European Court, the applicant complained, in particular, of inciting and using evidence obtained as a result of him in the criminal proceedings in his case.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The use of an operational method, including the organization by the state authorities of numerous illegal transactions with a suspect, is a recognized and permissible means of investigating crimes when criminal activity is not a single isolated case but a continuing criminal act. In practice, such an operational method can be used to gain the confidence of a person in order to establish the scale of his criminal activity or to identify a larger source of a criminal organization, namely, the disclosure of a larger range of crimes.

 

However, under the general prohibition of incitement, secret employees tried to investigate the ongoing criminal activity in a passive manner and not to incite such influence to commit a more serious crime than that which the person had already planned to commit without such incitement. It follows that in cases involving the use of this operational method, any extension of the investigation must be justifiable for valid reasons, such as the need to provide sufficient evidence to convict, gain a deeper understanding of the nature and scope of the criminal activity of the suspect or the disclosure of a wider range of crimes. In the absence of these reasons, state bodies may be recognized as participating in activities that improperly expanded the scope or scope of the crime and could unfairly charge the accused with increased sanctions within the prescribed range of penalties or for aggravated offenses. In spite of the fact that, as a rule, questions about the appropriateness of imposing punishments are not within the scope of the Convention, as a matter of justice, the punishment applied must correspond to the crime that the accused really planned to commit. In such situations, although it would not be unreasonable to convict a person, it would be unfair to punish him for that part of the criminal activity that resulted from improper conduct on the part of government agencies.

 

It was not disputed by the parties that the applicant participated in four meetings during which he was able to issue a significant number of counterfeit euros by selling them to unofficial police officers. The first illegal transaction was the result of the applicant's own deliberate behavior, and there is no reason to believe that he would not have issued a counterfeit currency another time if instead of a police officer, an "ordinary" buyer addressed him.

 

However, there was no convincing evidence of who had taken the initiative to organize follow-up meetings between the applicant and the unofficial staff. There were no indications that during the relevant period the applicant sold counterfeit currency to someone other than private employees. During the domestic proceedings, secret employees could not explain why the applicant was not detained after the first illegal transfer of the euro, or the motives for the decision to commit numerous illegal transactions. Thus, it is unclear, in accordance with what form of practical guidance, if it was, they acted. The case did not contain information as to whether the respondent Government had taken additional steps to provide evidence that the necessary measures had been taken to prosecute an illegal business forfeiting currency and that could justify resorting to operational methods involving the organization of numerous illegal transactions with the applicant.

 

Since it was not possible to establish with sufficient certainty whether the applicant was a victim of incitement in violation of Article 6 of the Convention, it is important to verify the procedure for assessing the incitement case in the present case in order to ensure adequate protection of the rights of the defense.

 

The applicant put forward a provable argument for incitement. The competent criminal courts had to consider why the police decided to start the operation, what evidence was available to it, and in what order it interacted with the applicant. This is especially important in view of the lack of proper control by the investigating judge in giving sanction to this unspoken operation and the contradictory explanations of the unspoken employees regarding the decision-making process for carrying out the secret operation.

 

While checking the behavior of private employees, domestic courts in most cases confined themselves to ascertaining whether the private employees were acting on the basis of the sanction of the investigating judge. The Supreme Court reiterated and approved the motivation of the lower courts and evaded careful analysis and the provision of a relevant reasoning for accepting or rejecting the applicant's allegation that he was incited to participate in one of the subsequent illegal transactions.

 

In view of the foregoing, the courts of the respondent State did not fulfill their duty to effectively examine the applicant's argument for incitement, as required by the procedural test for incitement under article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Consequently, the decision-making procedure, which entailed the appointment of a more severe punishment to the applicant for repeated issuance of counterfeit currency, did not meet the requirements of fairness. This does not imply that he was wrongly convicted of making a counterfeit currency, but rather that the courts of Croatia did not establish whether the limit of his criminal activities increased because of his participation in subsequent illegal transactions as a result of improper conduct on the part of the authorities.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.

 

The Court also found that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention in connection with the private surveillance of the applicant.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/729-grba-v-croatia .

 

 

Tarman - Türkiye davasında 21 Kasım 2017 tarihli AİHM kararı (63903/10 no'lu şikayet).

 

Başvuran, 2010 yılında şikâyetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.

 

Durumda, başvuranın, Devleti özel hayatını üçüncü bir tarafın müdahalesinden korumaktan alıkoymaktan şikayetçi olması şikâyette bulunmuştur. Durumda, İnsan Haklarının ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunmasına İlişkin Sözleşme'nin 8. maddesinin şartlarının ihlali söz konusudur.

 

 

 

OLAYIN DURUMU

 


Başvuru sahibi iki makalede bir intihar bombacısı olarak tarif ettiği gazete, yazılmıştır Hakkında, patlamaya hazır, onun adını aradı ve onun resmi yayınlandı. İki gazetelere zararlardan Onun daha sonraki iddialar söz konusu makalelerin içeriği olduğu gerekçesiyle reddedilmiştir "tutarlı veri yayımı tarihinde mevcut idi."

 


HUKUK SORUNLARI

 


Sözleşmenin 8. Maddesi ile uyum konusunda. Başvuru sahibi, sorumlu Devlet yetkililerinin değil şikayet ve Devlet üçüncü bir tarafın müdahalesinden özel hayatını korumak evading. AİHS'nin 8. uyarınca Devletin pozitif yükümlülükleri bağlamında, Türk yetkililer Mahkemenin dava pratikte belirlenmiş kriterlere uygun olarak ifade özgürlüğü özel hayatı ve karşı tarafın haklarına saygı başvuranın hakkının bir karşılaştırmasını yapmak zorunda kaldı. Ancak, mevcut davada hakların uygun bir karşılaştırması yapılmamıştır:

 

(I) Verilere sevk kortu, söz konusu makalelerin içeriği (bir gerçek veya değer yargısı olarak ifadesi) Belirli bir sınıflandırma vermeden yayın sırasında başvuru ile ilgili olarak devam eden cezai soruşturma belgelerinde bazı saptamaları dayalı;

 

(Li) basın özgürlüğü mevcut durumda haklı olup olmadığı sorusuna tatmin edici bir cevap içermiyordu karar başvuru sahibinin kimliği denilen edildiği söz konusu makalelerin içerik ve formdan bellidir ününü korumak için başvuranın hakkına yapılan müdahalenin, onun bir fotoğrafını yayınladı ve Ceza soruşturması şüpheleri farklı bir nitelikte olmasına rağmen tehlikeli bir terörist olarak tanımlandı.

 


KARAR

 


Sözleşme'nin 8. maddesinin (oybirliğiyle) gereklerinin ihlali gerçekleştirilmiştir.

 


TAZMİNAT

 


Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. Mahkeme, başvurana manevi tazminat olarak 1.500 Euro vermiştir.

 

 

 

Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/730-tarman-turkiye-davasinda .

 

 

 

 

 

Judgment of the ECHR of 21 November 2017 in the case of Tarman v. Turkey (application No. 63903/10).

 

In 2010, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.

 

In the case, the complaint complained of the applicant for evading the State from protecting her private life from interference by a third party was successfully considered. 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

 


Two articles were written about the applicant in the newspaper, in which she was described as a suicide bomber, who was preparing an explosion, her name was called and her photo was published. Her subsequent demands for compensation for damage to the two newspapers were rejected on the grounds that the content of the contested articles "corresponded to the data available at the date of their publication."

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant complained not of the actions of the respondent Government but of the State's failure to protect her private life from interference by a third party. In the context of the State's positive obligations under article 8 of the Convention, the Turkish authorities had to compare the applicant's right to respect for her private life and the right of the opposing party to freedom of expression in accordance with the criteria established in the Court's case-law. However, a proper comparison of rights in the present case was not carried out:

 

(i) the courts simply referred to the data, based their findings on the documents of the ongoing criminal investigation of the applicant at the time of publication, without giving a specific classification (statement as fact or value judgment) of the content of the contested articles;

 

(ii) the decisions did not provide a satisfactory answer to the question as to whether the freedom of the press in the present case justified an interference with the applicant's right to defend her reputation, which followed from the content and form of the contested articles, in which the applicant's identity was named, her photo was published, and she was described as a dangerous terrorist, although her suspicions of criminal investigation were of a different nature.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/731-tarman-v-turkey .