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

Новости от 31 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 31.08.2018 16:30

 

In the case, the applicants successfully complained that they had been evicted from an apartment that they had purchased from a person who did not have any rights to it. 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 the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

In their complaints, the applicants (12 persons) who were bona fide purchasers complained that they had been evicted from the apartment they had purchased from a person who did not have any rights to it, but the applicants were not aware of this during the purchase of the apartment.

On 25 July 2017, on the complaints 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 (protection of property) against certain applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 25,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. For each complaint, applicants were awarded EUR 5,000.

The ECHR judgment of 25 July 2017 in the case of Rastorguyev and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 11808/15, 12068/15, 12253/15, 12472/15 and 25624/15).


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/748-rastorguyev-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions at the places of serving their sentences and the fact that he did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard and the inability to personally participate in the consideration of his case in civil proceedings. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3, Article 13 and Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

 

In 2010, 2013 and 2015, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (five persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention in places of serving their sentence. One applicant also complained that he did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard and the inability to personally participate in the examination of his case in civil proceedings.

 

On 20 July 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) and paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) in respect of one applicant and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 60,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,000 to 22,800 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 20 July 2017 on the case "Bagnov and Others v. Russia" (аpplications N 5122/10, 12406/10, 22413/10, 26708/13 and 25300/15).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/749-bagnov-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the inhuman conditions at the places where they served their sentences, the conditions for transfer and maintenance in metal cages in the courtroom, as well as the lack of effective domestic legal remedies. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3, Article 13, Article 6, paragraph 1, Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

 

In 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (five persons) complained of inhuman conditions at the places where they served their sentences, and certain applicants also on the conditions for removal and for holding in metal cages in the courtroom. Some applicants also complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies in connection with these conditions of detention, the inability to personally participate in the proceedings in civil proceedings and the length of detention pending trial.

 

On 20 July 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective domestic remedy), paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) against certain applicants, and obliged the respondent State to pay Manifestations 43,950 euros in non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from € 1,950 to € 15,800.

 

The ECHR judgment of 20 July 2017 in the case of Polomkin and Others v. Russia (аpplication No. 59297/09, 41524/12, 78846/13, 56756/15, 25055/16).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/750-polomkin-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions in places of serving their sentences and on the lack of an effective domestic remedy were successfully considered. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

 

In 2013 and 2014, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (six persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention in places of serving their sentence. Some claimants also referred to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.

 

On 20 July 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all the applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective domestic remedy) with respect to of some applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants 47,300 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 3,200 to 15,800 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 20 July 2017 in the case of Vilkov and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 38884/13, 44253/13, 47807/14, 56597/14, 56739/14 and 56740 / 14).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/751-vilkov-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions in places of serving their sentences and on the lack of an effective domestic remedy were successfully considered. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

 

In 2013, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaints, the applicants (five persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention in places of serving their sentence. Some claimants also referred to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.

 

On 20 July 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all the applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective domestic remedy) with respect to of certain applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 41,100 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 2,800 to 17,800 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 20 July 2017 in the case "Antonov and Others v. Russia" (аpplications N 3459/13, 15270/13, 17899/13, 22567/13 and 24670/13).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/752-antonov-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The applicant successfully complained about the fact that he was not provided with legal assistance during the appeal proceedings in his criminal case and that the conditions in the correctional colony where he served his sentence were inhuman and degrading treatment. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and subparagraph "c" of paragraph 3 and paragraph 1 of Article 6 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 applicant complained that he had not been provided with legal assistance in the course of the appeal proceedings in his criminal case and that the conditions of his detention in the penal colony where he served his sentence were inhuman and degrading treatment.

 

On 18 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 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) without violating the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (c) and 1 to a fair trial), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 18 July 2017 in the Sklyar v. Russia case (аpplication No. 45498/11).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/753-sklyar-c-russia .

 

 

The applicant successfully complained that the authorities had prevented him from organizing single pickets of trade union members and that he had been fined illegally, allegedly for failure to notify the said pickets. The case violated the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

 

In 2010, 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 chairman of the trade union of the commercial organization, complained that the authorities had prevented him from organizing single pickets of union members and that he had been fined illegally allegedly for failure to notify the holding of these pickets.

 

On 18 July 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 11 of the Convention (the right to freedom of assembly and association) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 6,000 euros in compensation for moral harm.

 

The ECHR judgment of July 18, 2017 in the case "Zakharkin v. Russia" (аpplication No. 40377/10).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/754-zakharkin-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicant successfully complained that the refusal of the St. Petersburg City Court in an application for compulsory execution of the decision of the District Court of Florence, temporarily determining the place of residence of children after the dissolution of marriage, violated his right to family life. The violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights was committed in the case.

 

In 2013, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant, who is a US citizen, complained that the refusal of the St. Petersburg City Court in an application for compulsory execution of the decision of the District Court of Florence, temporarily determining the residence of children after the dissolution of the marriage with him, violated his right to family life, taking into account the fact that the children were taken from Italy to the Russian Federation by their mother. The applicant also complained that the proceedings in that case were not fair, since he was not notified of the date of his appeal.

 

On 18 July 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for private and family life) without violating the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial ) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 12,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of July 18, 2017 in the case of McIlwrath v. Russia (аpplication No. 60393/13).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/755-mcilwrath-c-russia .

 

 

The applicants successfully complained about the fact that they were deprived of their apartment and evicted from it. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 

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

 

In their complaint, the applicants complained that they were deprived of their apartment and evicted from it on the grounds that the court recognized all transactions made by the previous owner of the apartment as invalid.

 

On 18 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) without violating the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to protect property) and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of July 18, 2017 in the case of "Malayevy v. Russia" (аpplication No. 35635/14).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/756-malayevy-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicant successfully complained that holding hearings on his administrative case in his absence violated the right to a fair trial and that the authorities could not return the confiscated car or recover its cost and that imposing an administrative fine and administrative detention for Participation in an uncoordinated action was a violation of his right to freedom of assembly. The case violated the requirements of Article 11 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 the Republic of Belarus, complained that the holding of hearings on his administrative case in his absence violated the right to a fair trial and that the authorities could not return the confiscated car or refund his value. The applicant also complained that the imposition of an administrative fine and administrative detention for participation in an uncoordinated action on March 31, 2012 violated his right to freedom of assembly.

 

On 18 July 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 11 of the Convention (the right to freedom of assembly and association) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of moral harm.

 

The ECHR judgment of July 18, 2017 in the case of Yeliseyev v. Russia (аpplication No. 32151/09).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/757-yeliseyev-c-russia .

 

 

пресуда на ЕСЧП од 16 ноември 2017 година, случајот на "Православната Охридска Архиепископија (грчка православна Охридска Архиепископија на Пеќката Патријаршија)" ( "Православната Охридска Архиепископија (грчко-православната Охридска Архиепископија на Пеќката Патријаршија)") против Македонија "(апликација бр 3532/07).

 

Во 2007 година, здружението на апликантот беше помогнато во подготовката на жалбата. Потоа, жалбата беше доставена до Македонија.

 

Во случајот, жалбата на здружението-апликант успешно се смета за одбивање да се регистрира здружението како религиозна организација. Во случај на повреда на членот 11 од Конвенцијата за заштита на човековите права и основни слободи.

 

 

 

ОКОЛНОСТИ НА СЛУЧАЈОТ

 


Барањата на здружението жалител за регистрација како верска организација биле одбиени, како и нејзините жалби за одбивање. Европскиот суд на правдата, особено, тврди дека одбивањето на властите на одговорната држава треба да го регистрираат повредено правото на слобода на вероисповед и асоцијација.

 


ПРАШАЊА ЗА ПРАВОТО

 


Член 11 од Конвенцијата во смисла на член 9 од Конвенцијата. Се признава дека има попречување на правото на здружување на барателот во согласност со член 11 од Конвенцијата, толкуваат во смисла на член 9 од Конвенцијата. Попречувањето било "пропишано со закон" и продолжи "легитимна цел", односно заштита на правата и слободите на другите. Централното прашање е дали на непризнавањето од страна на властите на тужената држава на здружување на жалителот како религиозна организација "неопходно во едно демократско општество".

 

(а) Очекувани формални слабости. Состојбата на властите во Македонија од неколку формални недостатоци кои го оправдуваат одбивањето да се регистрира здружението на подносителот на барањето: барањето за регистрација е поднесено од неовластено лице надвор од предвидениот рок, одредбите сопственост на статутот на барателот асоцијација спротивно на постојното законодавство, на Здружението на подносителот на барањето не е наведено дали има намера да работи како црква, заедница или група и не се карактеризира како доброволно здружение на поединци. Во своите одлуки, судовите на Република Македонија се фокусираше на чисто формалните аспекти, наместо за основаноста на барањето, и, покрај тоа, тие се објасни, она што е нивното значење за решавање на регистрација на здружението барателот. Горенаведените мотиви во врска со формалните недостатоци за регистрација не беа "релевантни и доволни".

 

(б) "Странско потекло" на здружението жалител. Судот не се доставени докази во поддршка на одобрение од надлежните органи на одговорната држава дека Здружението Жалителот е основано од странско црквата или државата. И покрај фактот дека шефот на Здружението на жалителот назначил Српската православна црква, неговите основачи се државјани на тужената држава. Во секој случај, се чини дека релевантното законодавство не го спречи регистрирањето на верска организација основана од странска организација или држава.

 

(в) наводното име на здружението жалител. Здружението на жалителот првично побарал да се регистрира како "Православната Охридска Архиепископија", а потоа како "Грчката Православна Охридска Архиепископија на Пеќката Патријаршија". Според македонскиот закон, надлежните органи треба да се смета за нејзина примена во однос на законски услов што го спречува регистрација на верска организација, чие име е (суштина) не се разликуваат од регистрираните организации. Во контекст на слободата на здружување со други, тоа се припишува на компонента, како што сугерира името меѓу најважните елементи кои се идентификуваат на здружението, тоа да биде религиозна или било кој друг, и го разликува од другите слични организации. Меѓутоа, во овој случај, е избран за асоцијација на барателот име, тоа беше доволно јасно да се разликува од Охридската Архиепископија на Македонската православна црква. Исто така, нема причина да се верува дека здружението на жалителите има намера да се идентификува со Македонската православна црква. Напротив, во текот на спорната постапка таа постојано и директно одбивала да се меша или да се дружи со неа. И покрај повлекувањето на домашно ниво дека Македонската православна црква е "историски, верски, морални и материјални права" да го користи името "Охридската архиепископија", не постои причина да се верува дека името на здружението, подносителот на барањето ќе се повредуваат правата и слободите на другите, особено религиозни.

 

(г) Наводната намера на здружението жалител да стане паралелна верска организација во врска со Македонската православна црква. Утврдени во судската пракса на Европскиот суд на должност на државата да биде неутрален и непристрасен е неспојлива со вршење на државната власт за да се процени за легитимноста на религиозни верувања или начини на изразување на овие верувања. Иако е очигледно дека автокефалијата и единството на Македонската православна црква, се исклучително важни за поддржувачи и следбеници на Црквата и општеството како целина, тоа не може да се оправда во едно демократско општество, за примена на мерки кои, како во овој случај, отиде толку далеку што да се целосно и, се разбира, да се спречи здружението на апликантот да започне некоја активност.

 

Улогата на Владата во ситуација на конфликт меѓу религиозните групи и во нив не е како да се елиминира причината за конфликтот со елиминирање на плурализмот, но за да се осигура дека се натпреваруваат групи толерира едни со други. Покрај тоа, не постои оправдување за превентивна природа на мерките за спречување на слободата на здружување и изразување, освен во случаите на поттикнување на насилство или отфрлање на демократските принципи, сепак шокантни и неприфатливи одредени ставови или изрази може да се појави на властите, а сепак нелегитимни може да да бидат барања. Во ниту една фаза на постапката за регистрација или постапките пред Судот дека не се тврди дека Здружението жалител се залагаше за употреба на насилство или било која друга анти-демократски средства за постигнување на своите цели.

 

(E) Заклучок. Со оглед на погоре, тоа не може да се каже дека со оглед на одговорната мотиви држава е воопшто биле "релевантни и доволни" за да се оправда пречки, и начинот на кој македонските власти одбија да го признаат здружението на жалителот како религиозна организација, не може да се смета за неопходно во едно демократско општество.

 


ОДЛУКА

 


Во случај на повреда на членот 11 од Конвенцијата (едногласно).

 


КОМПЕНЗАЦИЈА

 


Во членот 41 од Конвенцијата. Судот доделува Здружението жалител, 4,500 евра за нематеријална штета, барањето за надомест на материјална штета беше одбиена.

 

 

 

Извор на објавување: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/742-pravoslavna-ohridska-arhiepiskopija-na-pekskata-patrijarsija-protiv-makedonija .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 16 November 2017 on the case "Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese" ("Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the Pec Patriarchy") against Macedonia "( application No. 3532/07).

 

In 2007, the applicant association was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Macedonia.

 

In the case, the complaint of the association-applicant was successfully considered for refusal to register the association as a religious organization. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applications of the applicant association for registration as a religious organization were rejected, as were her complaints of refusal. In the European Court, in particular, she argued that the refusal of the respondent Government to register her violated her rights to freedom of religion and association.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Article 11 of the Convention in the light of article 9 of the Convention. It is acknowledged that there has been an interference with the right of the applicant association in accordance with article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of article 9 of the Convention. This interference was "prescribed by law" and pursued a "legitimate aim", namely the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The central question was whether the authorities of the respondent State did not recognize the applicant association as a religious organization "necessary in a democratic society".

 

(a) Expected formal weaknesses. The Macedonian public authorities referred to several formal deficiencies justifying the refusal of registration of the applicant association: the application for registration was filed by an unauthorized person outside the prescribed time limit, the property provisions of the association's statute were inconsistent with the current legislation, the applicant association did not indicate whether it intended to function as church, community or group, and it did not characterize itself as a voluntary association of individuals. In their decisions, the courts of Macedonia focused on purely formal aspects, and not on the merits of the application, and, in addition, they did not explain what was their significance for allowing the registration of the applicant association. The above motives regarding formal deficiencies for registration were not "relevant and sufficient".

 

(b) "Foreign origin" of the applicant association. The European Court did not provide evidence in support of the Government's submission that the applicant association had been established by a foreign church or State. Despite the fact that the head of the applicant association was appointed by the Serbian Orthodox Church, its founders were citizens of the respondent State. In any case, it seems that the relevant legislation did not prevent the registration of a religious organization established by a foreign organization or state.

 

(c) The alleged name of the applicant association. The applicant association initially requested registration as "Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric", and then as "Greek Orthodox Okhrid Archbishopric of the Pec Patriarchate". According to the legislation of Macedonia, the competent authorities were required to consider her application in the light of the statutory requirement preventing the registration of a religious organization whose name (essentially) did not differ from the already registered organization. In the context of freedom of association with others, it was an attributable component, since its name was one of the most important elements identifying the association, whether religious or otherwise, and distinguished it from other similar organizations. However, in the present case, the name chosen for the applicant association was specific enough to distinguish it from the Ohrid Archdiocese of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. In addition, there was no reason to believe that the applicant association intended to identify itself with the Macedonian Orthodox Church. On the contrary, during the disputed proceedings she consistently and directly refused to mix or associate herself with her. Despite the conclusion at the domestic level that only the Macedonian Orthodox Church had a "historical, religious, moral and material right" to use the name "Ohrid Archdiocese", there was no reason to believe that the name of the applicant association would violate the rights and freedoms of others, in particular, religious.

 

(d) The alleged intention of the applicant association to become a parallel religious organization in relation to the Macedonian Orthodox Church. Established in the case-law of the European Court of Justice, the duty of the state to be neutral and impartial is incompatible with any power of the state to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs or ways of expressing these beliefs. While it is obvious that the autocephaly and unity of the Macedonian Orthodox Church were extremely important to the adherents and followers of this church and society as a whole, this could not justify in a democratic society the application of measures that, like in the present case, have gone so far as to completely and, of course, to prevent the applicant association from starting any activity.

 

The role of state bodies in the situation of conflict between religious groups or within them was not to eliminate the cause of conflicts by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure the tolerant attitude of competing groups to each other. In addition, there can be no justification for preventive measures with a view to suppressing freedom of association and expression, except in cases of incitement to violence or renunciation of democratic principles, however shocking and unacceptable certain views or expressions may seem to the authorities and no matter how unlawful be requirements. At no stage in the proceedings to register or hear the case before the Court, it was alleged that the applicant association advocated the use of violence or any other anti-democratic means in pursuit of its objectives.

 

(e) Conclusion. In view of the foregoing, it can not be asserted that the motives cited by the respondent State authorities as a whole were "relevant and sufficient" to justify the interference and the way that the Macedonian authorities denied recognition of the applicant association as a religious organization can not be considered necessary in a democratic society.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant association 4 500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage was rejected.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/743-orthodox-ohrid-archdiocese-of-the-pec-patriarchy-v-macedonia .

 

 

Presuda ECHR od 14. novembra 2017. u slučaju "i druge Kunich (Kunić i ostali) protiv Bosne i Hercegovine" (predstavka N 68955/12 i drugi), ECHR presuda od 14. novembra 2017. u slučaju "Spahić i drugi (Spahić i drugi ) protiv Bosne i Hercegovine "(predstavka br. 20514/15 i drugi).

 

U 2012. i 2015. godini podnosiocima predstavke je pružena pomoć u pripremi predstavkai. Nakon toga, predstavke su dostavljene Bosni i Hercegovini.

 

U slučaju, uspješno je razmatrana žalba zbog neplaćanja naknada u vezi sa radnim aktivnostima na osnovu sudskog postupka. Postojala je povreda zahteva iz člana 6 stav 1 Konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda i člana 1 Protokola br. 1 uz Konvenciju o zaštiti ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda.

 

 

 

OKOLNOSTI SLUČAJA

 


Podnosiocima prijava su dodijeljeni razni iznosi u pogledu neplaćenih naknada za rad. Ustavni sud Bosne i Hercegovine naknadno utvrdi da je došlo do povrede stava 1 člana 6 Konvencije i člana 1. Protokola N 1 Konvencije u odnosu na produženo nisu pravosnažne presude u korist podnosilaca. Međutim, konačne odluke ostaju neispunjene u smislu javnih sredstava.

 


PITANJA ZAKONA

 


Što se tiče usaglašavanja sa članom 6 stav 1 Konvencije i članom 1 Protokola br. 1 uz Konvenciju. Vlada tužene države ne može se pozvati na nedostatak finansijskih sredstava kao izgovor za neplaćanje u skladu sa sudskom odlukom. U svojim odlukama, Ustavni sud Bosne i Hercegovine, a posebno je naglasio da je relevantni kantonalne vlade treba da utvrdi tačan broj neizvršenih odluka, iznos ukupnog duga i stvoriti centralizovanu, hronološki i transparentne baze podataka, koji mora uključiti raspored rada i pomoći da se izbjegne zloupotreba procedura izvršenja. Uprkos činjenici da su preduzete neke opće mere, kako je ukazalo Ustavni sud, situacija podnosilaca predstavke je ostala nepromenjena. Bez uzimanja u ovom slučaju potrebne mjere u skladu sa konačnu odluku za tako dug period, vlasti tužene države lišen odredbe člana 6 § 1 Konvencije svih korisnih vrijednosti, kao i spriječiti podnosioca od prijema novca na koje su imali pravo. To je takođe predstavljalo nesrazmerno mešanje u nesmetanu upotrebu imovine.

 


ODLUKA

 


Slučaj je obuhvatao kršenje zahtjeva iz člana 6 stav 1 Konvencije i člana 1 Protokola br. 1 (jednoglasno).

 

U primjeni člana 46 Konvencije. Na osnovu člana 46. Visoke strane ugovornice se obavezala da se povinuju konačnoj presudi Europskog suda pravde u svakom predmetu u kojem su pod nadzorom Vijeća Evrope Komiteta ministara. Iz toga slijedi da je odluka u kojem je Sud utvrdio povredu nameće tuženoj državi zakonsku obavezu da ne samo da plati iznose dosuđene na ime pravične naknade u skladu sa članom 41. Konvencije, ali i da se pod nadzorom odgovarajuće mjere Komiteta ministara opće i / ili individualnog karaktera. Država je obavezna da preduzme takve mjere iu odnosu na lica na položaju podnosilaca predstavke, posebno uzimajući opšte mjere koje je Ustavni sud izneo u svojim odlukama.

 

Trenutno postoji više od 400 sličnih žalbi podnesenih Evropskom sudu. Nakon njihovog obavještavanja organima tužene države, u skladu s pravilom 54 stav 2 (b) Pravilnika suda, tužena država je trebala osigurati adekvatnu i dovoljnu kompenzaciju za sve podnosioce zahtjeva u sličnoj situaciji. Ova kompenzacija se može postići tako što ad hoc, kao što je sporazum poravnanje ili jednostranog proglašenja naknade u skladu sa zahtjevima Konvencije.

 


KOMPENZACIJA

 


Prilikom primene člana 41 Konvencije. U pogledu nadoknade za materijalnu štetu, podnosioci predstavke su tražili da isplaćuju preostale iznose dodeljene odlukama domaćih sudova. Najprikladniji oblik nadoknade u slučajevima neizvršenja je potpuna primjena ovih odluka sudova. Ovaj princip je takođe primjenjiv u ovom slučaju. Podnosioci predstavke su doživeli patnju, anksioznost i anksioznost kao rezultat odbijanja Vlade da se pridržava pravosnažnih odluka sudova donetih u njihovu korist. Sud je svakom aplikantu dodijelio 1.000 EUR za nematerijalnu štetu.

 

 

 

Izvor publikacije: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/744-kunic-i-ostali-protiv-bosne-i-hercegovine .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 14 November 2017 in the Kunic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina case (application No. 68955/12 and others), ECHR judgment of 14 November 2017 in the case of Spahic and Others ) against Bosnia and Herzegovina "( application No. 20514/15 and others).

 

In 2012 and 2015, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, applications were communicated to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 

In the case, the complaint on the non-payment of benefits related to work activities recovered on the basis of a judicial act was successfully considered. There has been a violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicants were awarded various amounts in respect of unpaid work-related benefits. The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina subsequently found that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention with regard to the prolonged non-enforcement of final decisions rendered in favor of the applicants. However, the final decisions remained unfulfilled in terms of public funds.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Government of the respondent State can not invoke the lack of financial means as an excuse for non-payment in pursuance of a judicial decision. In its decisions, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in particular indicated that the relevant cantonal governments should determine the exact number of outstanding decisions, the amount of the aggregate debt and create a centralized, chronological and transparent database that should include a timetable and help avoid abuse of enforcement procedures. Despite the fact that some general measures were taken, as indicated by the Constitutional Court, the situation of the applicants remained unchanged. By failing to take the necessary measures in the present case to enforce the final decisions for such a long period, the authorities of the respondent State deprived the provision of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention of any useful value, and also prevented the applicants from obtaining the funds for which they had the right. This also amounted to a disproportionate interference with the unhindered use of property.

 


DECISION

 


The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (unanimously).

 

In the application of Article 46 of the Convention. By virtue of Article 46, the High Contracting Parties have undertaken to implement the final judgments of the European Court of Justice in any case to which they are parties, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It follows that the judgment in which the Court finds a violation imposes on the respondent State authorities a legal obligation not only to pay the amounts awarded in an equitable way in accordance with Article 41 of the Convention but also to adopt, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, reasonable measures of general and / or of an individual character. The state is obliged to take such measures also with regard to persons in the applicants' position, especially by taking general measures indicated by the Constitutional Court in its decisions.

 

Currently, there are more than 400 similar complaints filed with the European Court. Following their communication to the respondent State authorities, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, the respondent State was to provide adequate and sufficient compensation to all applicants in a similar situation. This reimbursement could be achieved through ad hoc decisions, such as an amicable settlement or unilateral declarations of reimbursement in accordance with convention requirements.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. In respect of compensation for pecuniary damage, the applicants asked to pay the remaining amounts awarded by the decisions of the domestic courts. The most appropriate form of compensation in cases of non-performance is the full implementation of these decisions of the courts. This principle is also applicable in the present case. The applicants experienced suffering, anxiety and anxiety as a result of the Government's refusal to comply with the final decisions of the courts rendered in their favor. The Court awarded each applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/745-kunic-and-others-v-bosnia-and-herzegovina .

 

 

14 Kasım 2017 tarihli AİHM kararının İsikırık (Isikirik) v. Türkiye davası (41226/09 no'lu şikayet).

 

2009 yılında başvurucu şikayetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.

 

Bu durumda, başvuranın yasadışı bir örgütün faaliyetlerine üyeliği hakkındaki mahk conmiyetine ilişkin şikayet başarılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Dava, İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunmasına İlişkin Sözleşme'nin 11. maddesinin gereklerini ihlal etti.

 

 

 

OLAYIN DURUMU

 


o dört savaşçıların cenaze PKK'nın katıldı çünkü Ceza Kanunu'nun 220. paragrafında 6 temelinde hapis fazla altı yıl - (PKK bundan) ve hüküm 2007 yılında başvuran yasadışı silahlı örgüt "Kürdistan İşçi Partisi" nde "üyelik" suçlu bulundu Cenaze sırasında tabut birinin önünde yürüdü ve "V" belirtileri gösterir, diğer göstericiler onun üniversitede bir toplantı sırasında Abdullah Öcalan lehinde sloganlar atmaları üzerine alkışladı.

 

Türk mahkemeleri temyiz ve bu etkinliklere katılan PKK, başvuru sahibinin, talimatı üzerine düzenlenen cenaze gösteri örgüt "adına" hareket olarak kabul edilmelidir, çünkü o tuttu.

 

Türk Ceza Kanunu, yasadışı örgüt "adına" suç işlemiş olan bir kişinin 220. maddenin 6. paragrafa göre, fiili üyelik ispat yükünün somut kanıt yokluğunda Madde 314 Bölüm 2 uyarınca kuruluşun bir "üyesi" olarak cezalandırılır.

 


HUKUK SORUNLARI

 


Sözleşmenin 11. Maddesi ile uyum konusunda. Madde 220 ve cenaze ve gösterilere katılımı dayalı Türk Ceza Kanununun 314, Bölüm 2 nci maddenin 6 uyarınca yasadışı örgüte üyelik başvuranın mahkumiyetinin toplanma özgürlüğü hakkına bir müdahale olarak görülebilir.

 


Ceza Kanununun kendisi 220. maddesi paragrafında 6 ibaresi "yasadışı örgüt adına" anlamını tanımlamak vermedi. davalı Devletin mahkemeleri Ceza Kanunu'nun 220. Bölüm 6 uyarınca yasadışı organizasyonda geniş "üyelik" kavramını yorumladılar. yasadışı örgüte ve örgüt yönelik olumlu tutum açık ifade çağrısı ile gösterilerde varlığı çok gerçeği, örgüt "adına" eylem tanınması için yeterli olarak kabul edildi ve bu nedenle, aktif bir üyesi olarak başvuru cezalar uygulaması.

 

Ceza Kanununun madde 314 yasadışı örgüt üyeliği "" ayrı uygulanmış Aksine, mahkemeler dikkate sanığın "süreklilik, çeşitlilik ve yoğunluk" eylemleri zorunda kaldı. Benzer şekilde, aynı makale Ceza Kanunu'nun 220. Bölüm 6 atfen kullanıldığı gibi sanık, örgütün "hiyerarşi" dahilinde suç işledi olmadığını değerlendirmek gerektiğini, hiyerarşideki eylemi sorunu değerini kaybetmiştir. Sonuç, eylem kümesi olarak, potansiyel olarak, Türkiye'nin mahkemeler tarafından geniş yorumlanması da dahil standartların, formülasyonu, keyfi karşı koruma yeterli bir ölçü değildir ki kapsamlı Ceza Kanunu'nun 220 Paragraf 6 uyarınca özgürlükten yoksun şeklinde sıkı cezai yaptırımlar uygulanması için temel kim verdi kamu makamlarının müdahalesi.

 

Üstelik bu AİHS'nin 11. kapsamı içindedir eylemler için başvuru sabıka kaydı ile bağlantılı olarak özellikle önemlidir, onu ve huzurlu göstericiler ve PKK yapısında bir suç işledi kişi arasında hiçbir fark yoktu. Böyle üyelik hakkında özel verilerin yokluğunda yasadışı örgüt üyeliğiyle temel özgürlüklerden sadece egzersiz kefeye etkisi varsa hukukun üstünlüğü Böyle bir geniş yorumlanması haklı olamaz.

 

Başvuru sahibi yani müdahalenin yasayla öngörülmüş değildi Sözleşmesinin 11. maddesinde hakkına, keyfi müdahaleye karşı yasal koruma sağlamak vermedi çünkü Sonuç olarak, Ceza Kanunu'nun 220 Bölüm 6, kendi uygulamasında bir "öngörülebilir" değildi. Göstericiler yasadışı silahlı örgüt üyeliği suçlamasıyla çatışmasıyla Ayrıca, bunlar hapis beş ila on yıl arasında değişen ek cezalandırılması, yaptırım çarpıcı sade ve davranışları son derece orantısız olduğunu. Ceza Kanunu'nun 220. bölümü 6 ışığında kaçınılmaz ifade ve toplanma özgürlüğü özgürlüğü haklarını kullanmaları üzerinde özellikle soğutma etkisi olurdu mevcut durumda uygulanan.

 

Buna ek olarak, bu hükmün uygulama yalnızca açık katılma AİHS'nin 10. ve 11. maddeleri kapsamında haklarının yeniden uygulanması için dava değil, aynı zamanda katılan gösterilerde kamuya diğer üyelerine büyük bir caydırıcı vardı ve genel olarak yapmakta olanlar caydırmak olmayabilir politik tartışma.

 

barışçı toplantı özgürlüğü hakkının özüne zarar verecek yukarıda dayanarak ve bu nedenle, başvuru yalnızca üzerinde görüşlerini halka açık bir toplantı ziyaret ve ekspres üzere Madde 220 ve Ceza Kanununun 314 parçası 2'nin Paragraf 6 uyarınca suçlu bulundu demokratik bir toplumda, temelleri.

 


KARAR

 


AİHS'nin 11. maddesinin gerekliliklerinin ihlali (oybirliğiyle) davada işlenmiştir.

 


TAZMİNAT

 


Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. Mahkeme, başvurana manevi tazminat olarak 7.500 Euro tazminat ödenmesine karar vermiştir.

 

 

 

Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/746-isikirik-turkiye-davas .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 14 November 2017 in the case of Isikırık (Isikirik) v. Turkey (application No. 41226/09).

 

In 2009, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.

 

In the case, the complaint on the applicant's conviction for membership in the activities of an illegal organization was successfully considered. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


In 2007 the applicant was convicted of "membership" in the illegal armed organization "Kurdistan Workers Party" (hereinafter - the PKK) and sentenced to more than six years in prison on the basis of paragraph 6 of Article 220 of the Criminal Code, because he attended the funeral of the four fighters PKK walked in front of one of the coffins during a funeral and showed a "V" sign, applauded when other demonstrators shouted slogans in support of Abdullah Ocalan during a meeting at his university.

 

The Turkish courts decided that, since the funeral and demonstration were conducted according to the appeals and instructions of the PKK, the applicant who participated in these events should be considered acting on behalf of this organization.

 

Pursuant to Part 6 of Article 220 of the Turkish Penal Code, a person who commits an offense "on behalf" of an illegal organization is punished as a "member" of this organization in accordance with Part 2 of Article 314 in the absence of the obligation to prove the material signs of actual membership.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 11 of the Convention. The conviction of the applicant for membership in an illegal organization on the basis of part 6 of article 220 and part 2 of article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code, based on his participation in funerals and demonstrations, could be considered an interference with his right to freedom of assembly.

 

The wording of part 6 of article 220 of the Penal Code did not in itself determine the meaning of the expression "on behalf of an illegal organization". The courts of the respondent state broadly interpreted the concept of "membership" in an illegal organization in accordance with Part 6 of Article 220 of the Criminal Code. The mere presence of an illegal organization at the demonstration and the open expression of a positive attitude towards this organization was recognized as sufficient to recognize the action "on behalf" of the organization and, consequently, the application of punishment to the applicant as a real member.

 

On the contrary, when Article 314 of the Criminal Code was applied separately in the part of "membership" in an illegal organization, the courts had to take into account the "continuity, variety and intensity" of the actions of the accused. Similarly, they had to assess whether the accused committed the crimes within the "hierarchical structure" of the organization, since if the same article was applied with reference to Part 6 of Article 220 of the Penal Code, the issue of the operation in the hierarchy lost its significance. As a result, a set of actions, potentially who gave the basis for the application of stricter criminal sanctions in the form of deprivation of liberty in accordance with Paragraph 6 of Article 220 of the Criminal Code, was so extensive that the formulation of standards, including its broad interpretation by the courts of Turkey, is not a sufficient measure of protection against arbitrary interference from public authorities.

 

Moreover, and this is especially important in connection with the applicant's conviction for acts that fall within the scope of Article 11 of the Convention, there was no difference between him, a peaceful demonstrator, and a person who committed crimes in the structure of the PKK. Such a broad interpretation of the legal norm can not be justified if it has the effect of equating the simple exercise of fundamental freedoms with membership in an illegal organization in the absence of specific data on such membership.

 

Consequently, Part 6 of Article 220 of the Penal Code was not "predictable" in its application, since it did not provide the applicant with legal protection against arbitrary interference with his right under Article 11 of the Convention, that is, the interference was not provided by law. In addition, when demonstrators clashed with charges of membership of an illegal armed organization, they face additional punishment ranging from five to ten years in prison, the sanction is strikingly austere and extremely disproportionate to their behavior. Taking into account the above, Part 6 of Article 220 of the Criminal Code, applied in the present case, would inevitably exert a particularly restraining influence on the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

 

In addition, the application of this rule can not only deter those who have been prosecuted for re-exercising their rights under articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, but also had a great potential to deter other members of the public from attending demonstrations and, in general, from participating in an open political debate.

 

Based on the above would impair the very essence of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and, therefore, the foundations of a democratic society, where the applicant was found guilty in accordance with Paragraph 6 of Article 220 and part 2 of article 314 of the Penal Code only for visiting a public meeting and express their views on it.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/747-isikirik-v-turkey .