Новости от 01 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with or delay in the enforcement of judgments of the courts of the Russian Federation, which obliged state bodies to fulfill various obligations in kind in favor of the applicants. 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 2011 and 2013, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (three persons) complained of non-execution or delay in enforcing the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation, which obliged state bodies to fulfill various obligations in kind in favor of the applicants. The applicants also argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 18 July 2017, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 9,200 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 3,200 to 6,000 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 18 July 2017 in the case "Korotayeva and Others v. Russia" (аpplications Nos. 13122/11, 73303/11 and 19315/13).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/764-korotyayeva-and-others-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention, the lack of effective domestic remedies in this regard, and the fact that he was detained for no legitimate reason. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3, Article 13 and Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2009 and 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (four persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Some claimants also referred to the lack of effective domestic legal remedies in this regard. One applicant also complained that he was detained for no legitimate reason.
On 6 July 2017, on the basis of 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) 1 of Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) against certain applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 31,300 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 7,500 to 8,000 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 06 July 2017 in the case of "Orudzhov and Others v. Russia" (аpplications N 53494/09, 10862/16, 53786/16 and 55263/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/765-orudzhov-and-others-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint about poor conditions of detention, the provision of inadequate medical care and the fact that he did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2011, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was also communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained about the poor conditions of detention in one of the pre-trial detention centers in Yekaterinburg, the provision of inadequate medical care and the fact that he did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 6 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 July 06, 2017 in the Petrov v. Russia case (аpplication no. 52873/11).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/766-petrov-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 in this regard 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 2014 and 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (eight persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention in places of serving their sentences. Some claimants also referred to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 6 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 47,400 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 3,600 to 13,800 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case of Kudryavtsev and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 50487/14, 7250/16, 7403/16, 14645/16, 21221/16, 21351 / 16, 22078/16 and 24581/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/767-kudryavtsev-and-others-c-russia .
The applicants successfully complained about the fact that they were not provided with the possibility of personal participation in the consideration of civil disputes to which they were parties. The case involved violations of the requirements of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2009, 2012 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 (five persons) who were in custody during the period relevant to the circumstances of the case complained that they were not provided with the possibility of personal participation in the consideration of civil disputes to which they were parties.
On 6 July 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 1,500 euros as compensation for moral damage.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case of Chepinoga and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 48836/09, 41652/12, 27066/13, 19691/14 and 35134/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/768-chepinoga-and-others-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the unreasonable length of their detention pending trial, the illegality of the extension of the period of detention beyond the maximum possible period and the lack or inadequacy of compensation for unlawful detention. The case involved violations of the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 5, subparagraph "c" of paragraph 1 of Article 5, paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2014, 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 (eight persons) complained about the unreasonable length of their detention pending trial. Some applicants complained about the illegality of extending the detention beyond the maximum possible period and the lack or inadequacy of compensation for unlawful detention.
On 6 July 2017, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) against all the applicants, article 5, paragraph 1, subparagraph (c) , paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of certain applicants, and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 46 800 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,000 to 9,100 euros.
The ECtHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the Memetov and Others v. Russia case (аpplications N 9070/14, 12341/14, 13214/14, 15237/14, 18426/14, 18466 / 14, 60029/15, 19133/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/769-memetov-and-others-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions of detention in the places of serving their sentences, inadequate conditions of transfer, the inability to participate personally in the consideration of civil disputes, and also that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in connection with inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3, Article 13, paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2011, 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 (eight persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention in places of serving their sentences. Some applicants also complained about inadequate conditions of transfer, the inability to personally participate in the consideration of civil disputes, and the fact that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in connection with inhuman conditions of detention.
On 6 July 2017, on the basis of 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) 1 of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) against some of the applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants 64,800 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 2,800 to 10,100 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case of Kozhokar and Others v. Russia (аpplications no. 61766/11, 73809/13, 37262/15, 58944/15, 62524/15, 62740 / 15, 24684/16, 31267/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/770-kozhokar-and-others-c-russia .
The applicants successfully complained about the fact that they were not provided with the possibility of personal participation in the consideration of civil disputes to which they were parties. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 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) who were in custody during the period relevant to the circumstances of the case complained that they were not provided with the possibility of personal participation in the consideration of civil disputes to which they were parties.
On 6 July 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 1,500 euros as compensation for moral damage.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case of Gordeyev and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 61662/13, 64443/13, 67201/13, 11204/14, 13237/14, 15444 / 14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/771-gordeyev-and-others-c-russia .
The applicants successfully complained about the fact that they were deprived of the right to participate in the elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation held on December 4, 2011. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (24 persons) who, during the period relevant to the circumstances of the case, served or continue to serve their sentences for the crimes committed so far, complained that they were deprived of the right to participate in the elections of the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation held 4 December 2011.
On 6 July 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections). The finding of the fact of the violation was recognized as sufficient just satisfaction.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case "Isakov and Others v. Russia" (аpplications N 54446/07, 51229/08, 16824/10, 44423/10, 43115/11, 77991 / 11, 78379/11, 78381/11, 78387/11, 1735/12, 2866/12, 10883/12, 18632/12, 31455/12, 35559/12, 69342/12, 73777/12, 78747/12, 5023/13, 10131/13, 3376/14, 14407/14, 32634/14, 68565/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/772-isakov-and-others-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicant's complaints about the unreasonable length of pre-trial detention and the fact that his criminal case had not been tried within a reasonable time. The case involved violations of the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 5 and paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2007, 2010 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 (seven) complained of the unreasonable length of detention pending trial. One applicant also complained that the trial of his criminal case was not carried out within a reasonable time.
On 6 July 2017, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) with respect to all the applicants, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to fair trial) in respect of one applicant and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 25,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 2,000 to 6,000 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case of Shirokikh and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 30532/07, 36187/10, 11743/16, 28308/16, 50480/16, 50682 / 16 and 50777/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/773-shirokikh-and-others-c-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 07 ноября 2017 года по делу "Суханов и другие (Sukhanov and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 56251/12 и две других).
В 2012 году заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей на нерассмотрение судами по существу их обращений, на нарушение права на доступ к суду. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВА ДЕЛА
Суды Российской Федерации оставили без рассмотрения по существу иски трех заявителей на том основании, что заявители их отозвали. Власти государства-ответчика утверждали, что заявители не явились в суд или просили рассмотреть дело в их отсутствие. По мнению властей государства-ответчика, это составляло фактический отзыв исков, в связи с чем они были оставлены без рассмотрения в соответствии с абзацем восьмым статьи 222 Гражданского процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации.
Заявители утверждали, что их обращения в суды не были рассмотрены по существу в нарушение их права на доступ к суду.
ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА
По поводу соблюдения пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции. Явка в суд является правом, а не обязанностью истцов в гражданском разбирательстве. Суд имеет право расценить неоднократную неявку истца как фактический отзыв иска и, соответственно, прекратить разбирательство. Это возможно при достижении двух условий: надлежащего уведомления лица о дате слушания и отсутствия требования с его стороны о рассмотрении дела в его отсутствие.
Два заявителя, жалобы которых были признаны приемлемыми (Суханов и Мазунин), просили рассмотреть дела в их отсутствие. Таким образом, было очевидно, что они не отзывали свои иски, прямо или по умолчанию. Следовательно, применение судами абзаца восьмого статьи 222 Гражданского процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации представляется явно произвольным, поскольку оно не выявило связи между установленными фактами, применимым законодательством и исходом разбирательства.
Принимая во внимание вышеизложенное, для Европейского Суда не является обязательным отвлеченное установление того, преследовало ли прекращение разбирательства, которое законодатель предусмотрел в абзаце восьмом статьи 222 Гражданского процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации, правомерную цель, так как его применение, которое было явно произвольным, исказило цель данного положения. По той же причине Европейский Суд счел, что отсутствует необходимость рассматривать вопрос о пропорциональности оспариваемой меры, особо уделив внимание тому, могли ли вышеупомянутые заявители, как утверждали власти государства-ответчика, повторно предъявить свои требования для осуществления права на суд.
Судебные решения в отношении двух заявителей были произвольными и, таким образом, составляли "отказ в правосудии".
ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ
По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 6 Конвенции (принято единогласно).
КОМПЕНСАЦИЯ
В порядке применения статьи 41 Конвенции. Европейский Суд присудил выплатить заявителю Мазунину 2 000 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда, Суханов каких-либо требований не представил.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/758-sukhanov-i-drugie-protiv-rossiyskoy-federatsii .
ECHR judgment of November 7, 2017 in the case of Sukhanov and Others v. Russia (complaint No. 56251/12 and two others).
In 2012, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaints were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
The case successfully examined the complaints of the applicants for non-examination by the courts on the merits of their applications, on violation of the right to access to court. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The courts of the Russian Federation left without consideration on the merits the claims of the three applicants on the ground that the applicants had withdrawn them. The Government claimed that the applicants had not appeared in court or had been asked to consider the case in their absence. In the Government's opinion, this amounted to a factual withdrawal of claims, and therefore they were left without consideration in accordance with the eighth paragraph of Article 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
The applicants alleged that their appeals to the courts had not been examined on the merits in violation of their right to access to the court.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The appearance in court is the right, and not the duty of plaintiffs in civil proceedings. The court has the right to regard the plaintiff's repeated non-appearance as an actual withdrawal of the claim and, accordingly, to terminate the proceedings. This is possible if two conditions are met: the person is properly notified of the date of the hearing and there is no requirement on his part to review the case in his absence.
Two applicants whose complaints were found admissible (Sukhanov and Mazunin) were asked to consider cases in their absence. Thus, it was obvious that they did not withdraw their claims, directly or by default. Consequently, the application by the courts of the eighth paragraph of Article 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation is clearly arbitrary, since it did not reveal the connection between the established facts, applicable legislation and the outcome of the proceedings.
In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary for the Court to determine whether the termination of the proceedings, which the legislator envisaged in the eighth paragraph of Article 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, pursued the legitimate aim, since its application, which was clearly arbitrary, position. For the same reason, the Court considered that there was no need to examine the issue of the proportionality of the impugned measure, paying particular attention to whether the above-mentioned applicants, as the respondent Government had claimed, could re-present their demands for the exercise of the right to a court.
The judgments against the two applicants were arbitrary and thus amounted to a "denial of justice".
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The European Court awarded the applicant Mazunin 2,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, Sukhanov did not submit any claims.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/759-sukhanov-and-others-v-russia .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 07 ноября 2017 года по делу "Дудченко (Dudchenko) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 37717/05).
В 2005 году заявителю была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.
По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба заявителя на негласное наблюдение, установленное за ним, в том числе на прослушивание телефонных переговоров с его сообщником по уголовному делу и защитником, а также на нарушение своего права на уважение его личной жизни и корреспонденции. По делу допущены нарушения требований статьи 8 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВА ДЕЛА
Заявитель жаловался, в частности, на негласное наблюдение, установленное за ним, в том числе на прослушивание телефонных переговоров с его сообщником по уголовному делу и защитником. Он ссылался на нарушение своего права на уважение его личной жизни и корреспонденции.
ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА
По поводу соблюдения статьи 8 Конвенции. (a) Телефонные разговоры с сообщником. Прослушивание телефонных переговоров заявителя составляло вмешательство в осуществление его прав, предусмотренных статьей 8 Конвенции.
Что касается вопроса о том, было ли вмешательство "предусмотрено законом", то Европейский Суд установил в деле Романа Захарова (Постановление Европейского Суда по правам человека по делу "Роман Захаров против Российской Федерации" (Roman Zakharov v. Russia) от 4 декабря 2015 г., жалоба N 47143/06, см.: Бюллетень Европейского Суда по правам человека. 2016. N 6), что процедуры получения судебной санкции, предусмотренные законодательством Российской Федерации, не могли обеспечить, чтобы меры негласного наблюдения не назначались бессистемно, неправильно или без надлежащего и необходимого рассмотрения. Одна из проблем, выявленных в вышеуказанном деле, заключалась в том, что в повседневной практике суды Российской Федерации не удостоверялись в том, имелось ли "разумное подозрение" против заинтересованного лица, и не применяли тесты "необходимости" и "пропорциональности".
Власти государства-ответчика не представили доказательств того, что в деле заявителя суды Российской Федерации действовали иначе. Отсутствуют данные о том, что любая информация или документы, подтверждающие подозрения против заявителя, действительно были представлены судье. Единственная причина, приведенная судом в оправдание применения мер наблюдения, заключалась в том, что "представля[лось] невозможным получить информацию, необходимую для разоблачения незаконной деятельности (заявителя], путем открытого расследования", без объяснения того, как суд пришел к этому выводу. Такого расплывчатого и необоснованного высказывания было недостаточно для оправдания решения санкционировать длительную (180-дневную) негласную операцию наблюдения, которая влекла серьезное вмешательство в право на уважение личной жизни и корреспонденции заявителя.
ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ
По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 8 Конвенции (принято шестью голосами "за" при одном - "против").
(b) Телефонные разговоры с защитником. С целью избежать злоупотреблений полномочиями в делах, где в результате мер негласного наблюдения получен материал, на который распространяется адвокатская тайна, закон должен предусматривать следующие минимальные гарантии. Во-первых, закон должен ясно определить объем юридической профессиональной привилегии на сохранение адвокатской тайны и указать, как, при каких условиях и кем должно было устанавливаться различие между привилегированным и непривилегированным материалом. Поскольку конфиденциальные отношения между адвокатом и его клиентами относятся к особенно чувствительной сфере, которая прямо затрагивает права защиты, неприемлемо, чтобы эта задача поручалась представителю исполнительной власти в отсутствие надзора независимого судьи. Во-вторых, правовые нормы относительно рассмотрения, использования и хранения полученного материала, на которого распространяется адвокатская тайна, меры предосторожности, которые должны быть приняты при сообщении сведений другим сторонам, и обстоятельства, при которых записи могли или должны были быть удалены или материал уничтожен, должны обеспечивать достаточные гарантии для защиты материала, на который распространяется адвокатская тайна, полученного в результате негласного наблюдения. В частности, законодательство государства - участника Конвенции должно установить достаточно ясно и подробно следующее: процедуры обращения в независимый надзорный орган за пересмотром дел, в которых в результате негласного наблюдения получен материал, на который распространяется адвокатская тайна, процедуры безопасного уничтожения такого материала, условия, в соответствии с которыми он может храниться и использоваться в уголовном разбирательстве и расследованиях, проводимых правоохранительными органами, и процедуры безопасного хранения, распространения такого материала и его последующего уничтожения, как только он перестал быть необходимым для каких-либо санкционированных целей.
Законодательство Российской Федерации провозгласило защиту адвокатской тайны, которая понимается как охватывающая любую информацию, относящуюся к юридическому представительству клиента адвокатом. Однако оно не содержит каких-либо конкретных гарантий, применимых к перехвату адвокатских сообщений, и на адвокатов распространяются те же правовые нормы о перехвате сообщений, что и на любых других лиц. Европейский Суд уже установил в деле Романа Захарова, что данные правовые нормы не содержат адекватных и эффективных гарантий против произвола и риска злоупотреблений и поэтому не могут свести "вмешательство" к "необходимому в демократическом обществе". Самое важное в настоящем деле, что законодательство Российской Федерации не предусмотрело применяемых гарантий или процедур, подлежащих исполнению в делах, где при прослушивании телефона подозреваемого власти случайно прослушивают переговоры подозреваемого с защитником.
ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ
По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 8 Конвенции (принято шестью голосами "за" при одном - "против").
Европейский Суд также единогласно установил, что по делу допущены нарушения требований статьи 3 Конвенции в связи с условиями содержания под стражей заявителя в период судебного разбирательства и условиями перевозки заявителя между изоляторами, и шестью голосами "за" при одном - "против", что по делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции, поскольку его содержание под стражей не имело достаточных оснований. Наконец Европейский Суд единогласно решил, что по делу требования пункта 1 и подпункта "c" пункта 3 статьи 6 Конвенции нарушены не были на том основании, что устранение избранного заявителем защитника (заявитель ходатайствовал о допуске своего брата в качестве защитника, хотя у него уже был защитник) не причинило невосполнимый ущерб правам защиты заявителя или не умалило справедливость разбирательства в целом.
КОМПЕНСАЦИЯ
В порядке применения статьи 41 Конвенции. Европейский Суд присудил выплатить заявителю 14 000 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/760-dudchenko-protiv-rossiyskoy-federatsii .
The ECHR judgment of November 7, 2017 in the case of Dudchenko v. The Russian Federation (complaint No. 37717/05).
In 2005, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
The case successfully considered the applicant's complaint about the secret surveillance established for him, including the wiretapping of telephone conversations with his accomplice in the criminal case and the defender, as well as violation of his right to respect for his private life and correspondence. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant complained, in particular, of the secret surveillance established for him, including the wiretapping of telephone conversations with his accomplice in the criminal case and the defender. He referred to a violation of his right to respect for his private life and correspondence.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. (a) Telephone conversations with an accomplice. The hearing of the applicant's telephone conversations constituted interference with the exercise of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
With regard to the question of whether the interference was "prescribed by law", the Court found in the Roman Zakharov case (Roman Zakharov v. Russia, judgment of 4 December 2015, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights) , complaint No. 47143/06, see Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights 2016. No. 6) that the procedures for obtaining judicial authorization provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation could not ensure that the measures of unofficial observation were not assigned systematically, incorrectly or without above necessary and necessary consideration. One of the problems identified in the above case was that, in everyday practice, the courts of the Russian Federation did not ascertain whether there was a "reasonable suspicion" against the person concerned and did not apply the tests of "necessity" and "proportionality".
The Government did not provide evidence that the Russian courts had acted differently in the applicant's case. There is no information that any information or documents confirming suspicions against the applicant were indeed presented to the judge. The only reason given by the court to justify the use of surveillance measures was that it was "impossible" to obtain the information necessary to expose illegal activity (the applicant), through an open investigation, "without explaining how the court came to this conclusion. Such a vague and unreasonable statement was not enough to justify the decision to authorize a long (180-day) unspoken surveillance operation that involved serious interference with the right to respect for private life and the applicant's correspondence.
DECISION
The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (adopted by six votes "for" with one - "against").
(b) Telephone conversations with the defender. In order to avoid abuse of authority in cases where, as a result of tacit supervision measures, material obtained under the protection of an advocate's secret is provided, the law should provide for the following minimum guarantees. First, the law should clearly define the scope of the legal professional privilege for maintaining the legal profession and indicate how, under what conditions and by whom the distinction between privileged and unprivileged material should be established. Since confidential relations between a lawyer and his clients are a particularly sensitive area that directly affects the rights of defense, it is unacceptable for this task to be entrusted to a representative of the executive in the absence of supervision by an independent judge. Secondly, the legal norms regarding the consideration, use and storage of obtained material subject to legal secrecy, the precautions to be taken when communicating information to other parties, and the circumstances in which the records could or should have been deleted or the material destroyed, must provide sufficient guarantees for the protection of material covered by an attorney's secret, obtained as a result of secret surveillance. In particular, the legislation of a State Party to the Convention should set out in sufficient detail and in detail the following: the procedures for applying to an independent supervisory authority for reviewing cases in which, as a result of secret surveillance, material received for which a lawyer's secret is being disseminated, procedures for the safe destruction of such material, conditions in compliance with which it can be stored and used in criminal proceedings and investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies and procedures for safe hp the dissemination of such material and its subsequent destruction, once it ceased to be necessary for any authorized purposes.
The legislation of the Russian Federation has proclaimed the protection of attorney secrets, which is understood as covering any information relating to the client's legal representation by a lawyer. However, it does not contain any specific guarantees applicable to the interception of lawyer communications, and lawyers are subject to the same legal provisions on interception of communications as to any other persons. The Court has already established in Roman Zakharov's case that these legal norms do not provide adequate and effective guarantees against arbitrariness and risk of abuse and therefore can not reduce "interference" to "necessary in a democratic society". The most important thing in the present case is that the legislation of the Russian Federation did not provide for applicable safeguards or procedures to be enforced in cases where when listening to a suspect phone, the authorities accidentally listen to the suspect's talks with the defense attorney.
DECISION
The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (adopted by six votes "for" with one - "against").
The Court also unanimously found that there had been violations of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention in connection with the conditions of the applicant's detention during the trial and the conditions of the applicant's transport between the isolators, and six in favor, one in the case There has been a violation of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, since his detention did not have sufficient grounds. Finally, the Court unanimously decided that the case in point 1 and 3, paragraph 3 (c), of the Convention had not been violated on the grounds that the removal of the defender elected by the applicant (the applicant had applied for his brother as a defense counsel, although he already had defender) did not inflict irreparable damage to the rights of the applicant's defense or did not diminish the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 14,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/761-dudchenko-v-the-russian-federation .
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 07 ноября 2017 года по делу "Чередниченко и другие (Cherednichenko and Others) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 35082/13 и другие).
В 2013 году заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.
По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба на неопределенность относительно начала течения срока для обжалования решения районного суда в отсутствие системы, определяющей дату получения обжалуемого решения. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВА ДЕЛА
Пятеро заявителей хотели обжаловать решения районного суда. Все они, за исключением одного, представили жалобы, которые были признаны поданными с нарушением срока. Однако момент начала истечения срока на подачу жалобы на внутригосударственном уровне толковался по-разному: это была дата оглашения резолютивной части на слушании, дата составления мотивированного решения судьей, дата, в которую мотивированное решение было сдано в канцелярию суда, или дата получения копии решения по почте. Заявители жаловались на нарушение их права на доступ к суду на том основании, что в результате предположительно неправильного толкования процессуальных норм их жалобы были признаны неприемлемыми как поданные за пределами срока.
ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА
По поводу соблюдения пункта 1 статьи 6 Конвенции. Проблема, рассматриваемая в настоящем деле, являлась следствием системного недостатка, вытекающего из отсутствия на внутригосударственном уровне единообразной системы, позволяющей объективно установить дату, с которой полный текст решения доступен сторонам спора, с учетом того, что с этой даты начинает течь срок для подачи жалобы. Власти государства-ответчика могли бы исправить ситуацию, устранив данный недостаток в процессуальном законодательстве. Тем не менее в отсутствие такой системы Европейский Суд принял в качестве даты начала истечения срока для подачи жалобы даты, указанные заявителями, поскольку власти государства-ответчика не смогли доказать иное.
Отсюда следует, что трое заявителей реализовали свое право на обжалование в установленный срок, начавший течь в дату фактического получения полных копий судебных решений. Отклонив их жалобы в связи с истечением срока, суды Российской Федерации осуществили чрезмерно формальное толкование законодательства, в связи с чем на заявителей было возложено обязательство, которое они не могли исполнить, даже проявив особую старательность. С учетом тяжести санкции, возложенной на заявителей в связи с несоблюдением сроков, исчисленных подобных образом, оспариваемая мера не была пропорциональна цели обеспечения правовой определенности и надлежащего осуществления правосудия.
Что касается одного из заявителей, то неполучение им текста судебного решения лишило его права доступа к суду апелляционной инстанции.
ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ
По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 6 Конвенции (принято единогласно).
КОМПЕНСАЦИЯ
В порядке применения статьи 41 Конвенции. Европейский Суд присудил выплатить каждому заявителю 2 500 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/762-cherednichenko-i-drugie-protiv-rossiyskoy-federatsii .
The ECHR judgment of November 7, 2017 in the case of Cherednichenko and Others v. Russia (complaint No. 35082/13 and others).
In 2013, the applicants were assisted in preparing the complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In the case, the complaint about the uncertainty regarding the beginning of the period for appealing the decision of the district court in the absence of a system determining the date of receipt of the appealed decision was successfully considered. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
Five applicants wanted to appeal the decisions of the district court. All of them, with the exception of one, submitted complaints that were found to have been submitted in violation of the deadline. However, the timing of the commencement of the deadline for filing a complaint at the domestic level was interpreted in different ways: this was the date of the announcement of the operative part at the hearing, the date of the reasoned decision by the judge, the date on which the reasoned decision was submitted to the office of the court, or the date of receipt of the copy of the decision by mail . The applicants complained of a violation of their right to access to the court on the grounds that, as a result of the allegedly incorrect interpretation of the procedural rules, their complaints were declared inadmissible as being filed beyond the deadline.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The problem considered in the present case was a consequence of a systemic shortcoming resulting from the absence on the domestic level of a uniform system allowing objectively to establish the date on which the full text of the decision is available to the parties to the dispute, taking into account the fact that the deadline for filing a complaint starts from that date. The authorities of the respondent State could remedy the situation by eliminating this shortcoming in procedural law. Nevertheless, in the absence of such a system, the Court accepted, as the deadline for the commencement of the deadline for the filing of the complaint, the dates indicated by the applicants, as the authorities of the respondent State could not prove otherwise.
It follows that the three claimants exercised their right to appeal within a set time, which began to flow on the date of the actual receipt of the full copies of the court decisions. Having rejected their complaints in connection with the expiry of the term, the courts of the Russian Federation exercised an excessively formal interpretation of the legislation, and the applicants were thus bound to an obligation which they could not fulfill even with special diligence. In view of the gravity of the sanctions imposed on the applicants in connection with the failure to comply with the deadlines calculated in such a manner, the contested measure was not proportionate to the goal of legal certainty and the proper administration of justice.
As for one of the applicants, the failure to receive the text of the court decision deprived him of the right to access the court of appeal.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded EUR 2,500 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each applicant.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/763-cherednichenko-and-others-v-russia .
