Новости от 02 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The applicants successfully complained about the unreasonable length of pre-trial detention. The case involved violations of the requirements of paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2007, 2009, 2011, 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 (seven) complained of the unreasonable length of detention pending trial. Some applicants also complained about the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of their detention.
On 6 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 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) against all the applicants, Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of certain and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants EUR 15,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,000 to 4,000 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case "Badalov and Others v. Russia" (аpplications N 24904/07, 66983/09, 11858/11, 22656/14, 14672/16, 22083 / 16 and 22309/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/780-badalov-and-others-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or the delay in their execution. The case involved violations of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2013, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (nine persons) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation or of delay in their execution. The applicants also argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 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 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection) , and having determined that there is no need to consider a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy), the respondent Government ordered the applicants to pay the applicants 35,100 euros in compensation and pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 2,500 to 6,000 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case of Shmatko and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 20857/05, 9680/06, 23211/06, 24314/07, 2639/10, 28294 / 13 and 78568/13).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/781-shmatko-and-others-c-russia .
The applicants successfully complained of the inhuman conditions of detention and the lack of effective domestic remedies. Violations of the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights were committed in the case.
In 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (three persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention and the lack of effective domestic remedies in this regard.
On 6 July 2017, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the European Court, by adopting unilateral declarations by the Government of the Russian Federation concerning the inadequate conditions of the applicants' detention and awarding 13,945 euros in compensation in aggregate, excluded these complaints from the list of cases to be considered. The Court also unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) against all applicants. The finding of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention was recognized as sufficient compensation due to unilateral declarations under article 3 of the Convention.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case of Lysenkov and Others v. Russia (аpplications Nos. 1902/16, 8754/16 and 8799/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/782-lysenkov-and-others-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions in places of serving their sentences 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 2009, 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 claimants also referred to the lack of effective domestic legal remedies 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 the applicants EUR 49,250 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts from 4,650 to 8,500 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 on the case "Tselovalnik and Others v. Russia" (аpplications No. 17957/09, 33355/15, 20554/16, 43651/16, 44739/16, 44871 / 16, 60559/16 and 60702/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/783-tselovalnik-and-others-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions in places of serving their sentences 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 2011, 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 (seven persons) complained of inhuman conditions of detention in places of serving their sentences. Some claimants also referred to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 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 45,400 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,000 to 9,800 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case of Polunin and Others v. Russia (аpplications No. 16342/11, 60418/15, 31026/16, 43690/16, 44721/16, 52610 / 16 and 52807/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/784-polunin-and-others-c-russia .
In the case, the applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions in places of serving their sentences 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 2011, 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 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 the applicants 51,300 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,000 to 12,000 euros.
The ECHR judgment of 6 July 2017 in the case of Yudina and Others v. Russia (аpplications N 12860/11, 77799/14, 51648/15, 51675/15, 52102/15, 39996 / 16, 55432/16 and 56142/16).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/785-yudina-and-others-c-russia .
The applicant successfully complained of the unreasonable length of his detention pending trial. There have been violations of the requirements of Article 5, paragraph 3, 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 complained of the unreasonable length of his detention pending trial.
On 4 July 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 3,300 euros compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of July 4, 2017 in the case of Dergalev v. Russia (аpplication No. 39655/10).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/786-dergalev-c-russia .
The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints that the proceedings in their criminal cases were not fair, since when appealing against the verdicts of the first instance their cases were examined without the participation of representatives. The case involved violations of the requirements of paragraph 1 and subparagraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, 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 people) complained that the proceedings in their criminal cases were not fair, since when appealing against the first-instance verdicts, their cases were examined without the participation of representatives.
On 4 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 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 6 (1) Of the Convention and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 1,500 euros to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 04 July 2017 in the case "Ichetovkina and Others v. Russia" (аpplications N 12584/05, 45074/05, 45690/05, 11343/06, 51264/07 and 59378 / 08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/787-ichetovkina-and-others-c-russia .
In the case, the applicant successfully complained that the judgment rendered in his favor had not been enforced within a reasonable time and that the authorities had failed to protect his house from the annual flooding of melt and groundwater that had occurred after the repair of the roadway passing in the immediate vicinity of the applicant's house. The case violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
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 lived in Izhevsk, complained that the judgment in his favor had not been enforced within a reasonable time and that the authorities had failed to protect his house from the annual flooding of melt and groundwater that had begun to occur After the repair of the roadway passing in the immediate vicinity of the applicant's house.
On 27 June 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 1,950 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 27 June 2017 in the case of Bigashev v. The Russian Federation (аpplication No. 71444/13).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/788-bigashev-c-russia .
In the case, the applicant successfully complained that the lawyers had failed to perform their duties in an efficient manner, and that the trial in the appellate instance was not fair, since the applicant could not communicate with the lawyer in person, but only through the video communication system. The case involved violations of the requirements of paragraph 1 and subparagraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2006, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained that the lawyers on assignment had performed their duties ineffectively, and also that the trial in the appellate instance was not fair, since the applicant could not communicate with the lawyer in person, but only through the video communication system.
On 27 June 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of paragraph 1 and subparagraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), obliging the respondent State to pay the applicant 4,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 27 June 2017 in the case of Medvedev (Medvedev) v. Russian Federation (аpplication No. 5217/06).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/789-medvedev-c-russia-2 .
Постановления ЕСПЧ от 07 ноября 2017 года по делу "Зубков (Zubkov and Others) и другие против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 29431/05 и две других), "Ахлюстин (Akhlyustin) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 21200/05), "Москалев (Moskalev) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 44045/05), "Константин Москалев (Konstantin Moskalev) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 59589/10).
В 2005 году заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы на то, что они подверглись негласному наблюдению, прослушиванию их телефонных разговоров, один из заявителей жаловался на скрытую съемку его встреч со знакомыми на съемной квартире, а другой - на аудиовизуальное наблюдение за его офисом, а также на нарушение их права на уважение личной жизни, жилища и корреспонденции. По делу допущены нарушения требований статьи 8 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВА ДЕЛА
Заявители жаловались, в частности, на то, что они подверглись негласному наблюдению, в частности, прослушиванию их телефонных разговоров. Один из заявителей жаловался на скрытую съемку его встреч со знакомыми на съемной квартире, а другой - на аудиовизуальное наблюдение за его офисом. Они ссылались на предполагаемые нарушения их права на уважение личной жизни, жилища и корреспонденции.
ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА
По поводу соблюдения статьи 8 Конвенции. (a) Приемлемость жалобы. (i) Исчерпание внутригосударственных средств правовой защиты. Власти государства-ответчика утверждали, что заявители по делам Зубкова и других, Ахлюстина и Москалева не исчерпали внутригосударственные средства правовой защиты, поскольку не обращались в суд в соответствии со статьей 5 Федерального закона "Об оперативно-розыскной деятельности" (далее - Закон об ОРД).
Европейский Суд отметил, что объем жалобы в суд на основании статьи 5 Закона об ОРД независимо от того, была ли она подана в соответствии со статьей 125 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса (если уголовное расследование еще продолжалось) либо в соответствии с Законом об обжаловании в суд действий и главой 25 Гражданского процессуального кодекса, был ограничен проверкой того, осуществляли ли должностные лица государства, проводившие деятельность по наблюдению, наблюдение способом, совместимым с применимыми правовыми требованиями, и соблюдали ли они условия судебной санкции. Проверка не затронула правовые и фактические основания, подкреплявшие судебную санкцию, то есть имелись ли относимые и достаточные мотивы для разрешения негласного наблюдения.
Закон не обязывал суды рассматривать вопросы "необходимости в демократическом обществе", в частности, отвечали ли оспариваемые действия настоятельной общественной необходимости, и были ли они пропорциональны любой преследуемой законной цели, принципам, которые составляют основу анализа Европейским Судом жалоб в соответствии со статьей 8 Конвенции.
В контексте статьи 8 Конвенции средство правовой защиты в виде обжалования в суд, неспособное обеспечить рассмотрение того, отвечало ли оспариваемое вмешательство настоятельной общественной необходимости, не могло считаться составляющим эффективное средство правовой защиты. Принимая во внимание вышеизложенное, жалоба в суд в соответствии со статьей 5 Закона об ОРД не являлась эффективным средством правовой защиты, требующей исчерпания.
РЕШЕНИЕ
Предварительное возражение властей Российской Федерации отклонено.
(ii) Соблюдение правила шестимесячного срока. Все заявители, кроме одного, подали свои жалобы в течение шести месяцев после вынесения окончательного решения в уголовных разбирательствах против них. Существенно, что они узнали о негласном наблюдении во время этих разбирательств. Излагая позицию по делу Зубкова и других, Европейский Суд отметил, что он впервые рассматривает средства правовой защиты, существующие в правовой системе Российской Федерации в отношении жалоб на негласное наблюдение, о котором субъекты наблюдения узнали в ходе уголовного разбирательства против них. С учетом неопределенности относительно эффективности этих средств правовой защиты и, в частности, того, что в период, относящийся к обстоятельствам дела, нельзя было презюмировать, что постановка вопроса о негласном наблюдении в уголовном разбирательстве была явно неэффективным средством правовой защиты, для заявителей не было неразумным попытаться использовать доступное средство правовой защиты, чтобы предоставить судам Российской Федерации возможность урегулировать проблему в рамках своей правовой системы, тем самым соблюдая принцип того, что механизм защиты, созданный Конвенцией, является субсидиарным по отношению к внутригосударственным системам защиты прав человека.
Заявители узнали о негласном наблюдении во время уголовного разбирательства против них, когда прокуратура использовала перехваченную информацию в качестве доказательства обвинений против них. При таких обстоятельствах было разумным довести их жалобы до сведения судов государства-ответчика с помощью средств правовой защиты, предоставленных уголовно-процессуальным законодательством. Объяснения сторон не дают основания полагать, что заявители сознавали или должны были сознавать бесполезность такого образа действий. Кроме того, с учетом негласного характера наблюдения обвиняемые могли столкнуться с трудностями при получении доступа к документам, относящимся к ним. Это, в свою очередь, могло воспрепятствовать им в полном понимании обстоятельств проведения наблюдения и, что особенно важно, оснований его назначения. Таким образом, для заявителей не было неразумным ждать до получения документов, устанавливающих факты, существенные для обращения в Европейский Суд, до подачи своей жалобы. Следовательно, заявители не допустили несоблюдения правила шестимесячного срока.
РЕШЕНИЕ
Жалоба объявлена приемлемой для рассмотрения по существу (принято единогласно).
(b) Существо жалобы. Меры, направленные на прослушивание телефонных переговоров заявителей, составляли вмешательство в осуществление их прав, предусмотренных статьей 8 Конвенции.
Что касается того, было ли вмешательство "предусмотрено законом", Европейский Суд указал в деле Романа Захарова, 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 доказательства того, что суды Российской Федерации действовали иначе в деле заявителей. Поскольку не были представлены копии санкций на наблюдение в отношении заявителей, поэтому Европейский Суд не может проверить, были ли санкции основаны на разумном подозрении либо имелись ли "относимые" и "достаточные" мотивы для оправдания принятых мер наблюдения.
Кроме того, имеет существенное значение тот факт, что заявителям было отказано в доступе к санкциям, касающимся наблюдения. Несмотря на то, что могли быть уважительные причины для сохранения в тайне санкции на проведение негласного наблюдения полностью или частично от его субъекта, даже если последний узнал о ее существовании (например, во избежание раскрытия методов работы, сфер деятельности и личности негласных сотрудников), в то же время информация, содержащаяся в решении о санкции, может иметь критическое значение для разбирательства об обжаловании правовых и фактических оснований наблюдения. Соответственно, при наличии ходатайства о раскрытии санкции на негласное наблюдение внутригосударственные суды должны были обеспечить надлежащее равновесие между интересами субъекта и публичным интересом, и субъект наблюдения должен был иметь доступ к данным документам, если отсутствовали убедительные причины, препятствующие такому решению.
В делах Зубкова и других, Константина Москалева и Москалева Европейский Суд отметил, что не было установлено, что суды Российской Федерации, давшие санкцию на негласное наблюдение против заявителей, удостоверились в наличии "разумного подозрения" против них и применили тесты "пропорциональности" и "необходимости в демократическом обществе".
В деле Зубкова органы государственной власти ссылались исключительно на конфиденциальность разрешений на отказ в доступе и не уравновесили интересы заявителей и публичный интерес. Кроме того, они не указали, почему раскрытие разрешений после прекращения наблюдения и записей могло создать угрозу для эффективного отправления правосудия или любых других законных публичных интересов. Этот отказ в раскрытии разрешений в отсутствие уважительной причины лишил заявителей любой возможности проверки законности и необходимости меры независимым судом в свете относимых принципов статьи 8 Конвенции.
В деле Константина Москалева Европейский Суд отметил, что в деле Романа Захарова он пришел к выводу, что "неотложная процедура" в соответствии с пунктом 3 статьи 8 Закона об ОРД не содержит достаточных гарантий того, что ее используют умеренно и только в надлежащим образом обоснованных случаях. В частности, хотя законодательство Российской Федерации требует, чтобы судью немедленно информировали о каждом случае срочного прослушивания, судья не вправе оценивать оправданность срочной процедуры. Данные недостатки отмечались также в деле Константина Москалева. Судья, уведомленный о необходимости срочного прослушивания телефонных разговоров, не провел судебной проверки решения органов полиции о прослушивании его телефона, и независимый орган не оценивал, было ли оправдано применение срочной процедуры, и было ли оно основано на разумном подозрении.
В деле Москалева отсутствовали данные о том, что судье были представлены информация или документы, подтверждающие подозрение против заявителя. Кроме того, не имелось указаний на то, что суд оценил пропорциональность мер наблюдения или проверил, установлено ли справедливое равновесие между правом на уважение личной жизни и корреспонденции и необходимостью наблюдения. Единственная причина, приведенная судом для оправдания наблюдения, заключалась в том, что заявитель подозревался в совершении тяжкого преступления. Хотя эта причина была, несомненно, относимой, она не оправдывала сама по себе длительное и обширное наблюдение.
ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ
По делу допущены нарушения требований статьи 8 Конвенции (принято единогласно).
Европейский Суд также установил нарушение требования "качества закона" в деле Ахлюстина, которое касалось аудиовизуального наблюдения в офисе заявителя.
Как в деле "Быков против Российской Федерации" (Постановление Европейского Суда по делу "Быков против Российской Федерации" (Bykov v. Russia) от 10 марта 2009 г., жалоба N 4378/02), которое касалось прослушивания переговоров заявителя с помощью скрытого радиопередатчика, Ахлюстину почти не были предоставлены, если вообще были предоставлены, гарантии в процедуре назначения и исполнения в отношении него меры наблюдения. В частности, правовая дискреция властей по назначению "наблюдения" не была ограничена какими-либо условиями, и его объем и способ осуществления не были определены, а какие-либо иные конкретные гарантии не предусматривались. Ввиду отсутствия конкретных правил, содержащих гарантии, Европейский Суд не нашел, что предусмотренная законодательством Российской Федерации возможность возбуждения заявителем судебного разбирательства о признании наблюдения незаконным или об исключении его результатов из числа доказательств как полученных незаконно отвечала требованиям "качества закона".
ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ
По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 8 Конвенции (принято единогласно).
Европейский Суд также единогласно постановил, что по делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 13 Конвенции во взаимосвязи со статьей 8 Конвенции в деле Константина Москалева, поскольку заявитель не располагал эффективным средством правовой защиты, которое допускало оценку того, были ли меры наблюдения против него "предусмотрены законом", и были ли они "необходимы в демократическом обществе", и что по делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 4 статьи 5 Конвенции в отношении одного из заявителей в деле Зубкова и других, установив, что его жалоба на постановление о содержании под стражей не была рассмотрена безотлагательно.
Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/774-zubkov-and-others-i-drugiye-akhlyustin-protiv-moskalev-konstantin-moskalev-protiv-rossiyskoy-federatsii .
ECHR judgments of 7 November 2017 in the case of Zubkov and Others and Others v. Russia (application No. 29431/05 and two others), Akhlyustin (Akhlyustin) v. Russian Federation (application No. 21200/05), "Moskalev v. Russia" (application No. 44045/05), "Konstantin Moskalev (Konstantin Moskalev) v. Russian Federation" (application No. 59589/10).
In 2005, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, applications were communicated to the Russian Federation.
In the case, complaints about the fact that they were subjected to secret surveillance, listening to their telephone conversations, one of the applicants complained about the hidden shooting of his meetings with acquaintances in a rented apartment, and another for audiovisual surveillance of his office, as well as violation of their right to respect for private life, home 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 applicants complained, inter alia, that they had undergone an unspoken observation, in particular, the tapping of their telephone conversations. One of the applicants complained about the hidden shooting of his meetings with friends in a rented apartment, and another - on audiovisual surveillance of his office. They referred to alleged violations of their right to respect for private life, home and correspondence.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. (a) Admissibility of the complaint. (i) Exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Government claimed that the applicants for Zubkov and others, Ahlustin and Moskalev had not exhausted domestic remedies, since they did not apply to the court in accordance with Article 5 of the Federal Law "On Operative-Search Activity" (hereinafter - the Law on the RDD).
The Court notes that the amount of the complaint to the court under Article 5 of the Law on the RDD, regardless of whether it was filed in accordance with Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (if the criminal investigation was still ongoing) or in accordance with the Law on Appealing to the Court of Action and chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure was limited to verifying whether the officials of the State conducting the monitoring activity observed in a manner consistent with applicable legal requirements and observed They judicial authorization conditions. The audit did not affect the legal and factual grounds supporting the judicial authorization, that is, if there were any relevant and sufficient reasons for resolving the unspoken observation.
The law did not oblige the courts to consider the issues of "necessity in a democratic society", in particular, whether the impugned acts of urgent social necessity were answerable and whether they were proportional to any legitimate aim pursued, the principles that form the basis for the European Court's analysis of complaints under Article 8 of the Convention.
In the context of Article 8 of the Convention, a remedy in the form of an appeal to a court unable to ensure that the impugned interference with an urgent public need was in order could not be considered an effective remedy. Taking into account the above, the complaint to the court in accordance with Article 5 of the Law on the RAN was not an effective legal remedy requiring exhaustion.
DECISION
The preliminary objection of the Government of the Russian Federation was rejected.
(ii) Compliance with the six-month rule. All but one of the applicants filed their complaints within six months of the final decision in the criminal proceedings against them. It is significant that they learned about the unspoken observation during these proceedings. In the Zubkov and Others case, the Court notes that it is the first time that it considers the remedies available in the legal system of the Russian Federation with respect to complaints of unauthorized observation, which the subjects of observation learned during the criminal proceedings against them. Given the uncertainty about the effectiveness of these remedies and, in particular, that during the period relevant to the circumstances of the case it could not be presumed that raising the issue of tacit observation in criminal proceedings was clearly an ineffective remedy was not unreasonable for the applicants try to use an available remedy to enable the courts of the Russian Federation to resolve the problem within their legal system, thereby respecting the The fact that the protection mechanism established by the Convention is subsidiary to domestic systems for the protection of human rights.
The applicants learned of the unofficial observation during the criminal proceedings against them, when the prosecutor's office used the intercepted information as evidence of allegations against them. In such circumstances, it was reasonable to bring their complaints to the attention of the respondent State's courts by means of remedies provided by the criminal procedure law. The explanations of the parties do not give grounds for believing that the applicants were aware or should have been aware of the uselessness of such a course of action. In addition, given the unspoken nature of the observation, the accused could face difficulties in gaining access to documents related to them. This, in turn, could prevent them from fully understanding the circumstances of the observation and, most importantly, the reasons for its appointment. Thus, it was not unreasonable for the applicants to wait until they received documents establishing the facts relevant to the application to the European Court, before filing their complaint. Consequently, the applicants did not allow non-compliance with the six-month rule.
DECISION
The complaint was declared admissible for consideration on the merits (unanimously).
(b) Merits. Measures aimed at listening to the telephone conversations of the applicants constituted an interference with the exercise of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
As to whether the interference was "prescribed by law", the Court pointed out in the case of Roman Zakharov 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 haphazardly, incorrectly or without proper 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 courts of the Russian Federation had acted otherwise in the applicants' case. Since copies of the monitoring sanctions against the applicants were not provided, the Court can not verify whether the sanctions were based on reasonable suspicion or whether there were "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons for justifying the measures taken.
In addition, it is significant that applicants were denied access to surveillance sanctions. In spite of the fact that there could be valid reasons for keeping secret the sanction for holding secret surveillance in full or in part from its subject, even if the latter learned of its existence (for example, in order to avoid disclosing working methods, spheres of activity and personalities of private employees), in At the same time, the information contained in the decision on the sanction may be critical for proceedings to appeal against legal and factual grounds for observation. Accordingly, in the presence of an application for disclosure of the sanction for unofficial observation, the domestic courts had to ensure an appropriate balance between the interests of the subject and public interest, and the subject of surveillance should have access to these documents if there were no convincing reasons preventing such a decision.
In the cases of Zubkov and others, Konstantin Moskalev and Moskalev, the Court observes that it has not been established that the courts of the Russian Federation, which sanctioned unofficial observation against the applicants, have ascertained the existence of "reasonable suspicion" against them and applied tests of "proportionality" and "necessity" in a democratic society. "
In Zubkov's case, the state authorities referred solely to the confidentiality of the denial of access permits and did not balance the interests of the applicants and the public interest. In addition, they did not indicate why disclosure of permits after the termination of surveillance and records could pose a threat to the effective administration of justice or any other legitimate public interest. This refusal to disclose permits in the absence of a good reason deprived the applicants of any possibility of verifying the legality and necessity of the measure by an independent court in the light of the relative principles of Article 8 of the Convention.
In the case of Konstantin Moskalev, the European Court noted that in the case of Roman Zakharov, he concluded that the "urgent procedure" in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Law on the RAN does not provide sufficient guarantees that it is used only moderately and only in duly justified cases . In particular, although the legislation of the Russian Federation requires that the judge be immediately informed of every case of urgent listening, the judge is not entitled to assess the justification of the urgent procedure. These shortcomings were also noted in the case of Konstantin Moskalev. The judge, notified of the need for urgent wiretapping, did not conduct a judicial review of the decision of the police to listen to his phone, and the independent body did not assess whether the application of the urgent procedure was justified and whether it was based on reasonable suspicion.
In the case of Moskalev, there was no evidence that the judge was provided with information or documents confirming the suspicion against the applicant. In addition, there was no indication that the court assessed the proportionality of the monitoring measures or whether a fair balance was established between the right to respect for private life and correspondence and the need for observation. The only reason given by the court to justify the observation was that the applicant was suspected of committing a serious crime. Although this reason was undoubtedly attributable, it did not justify a long and extensive observation by itself.
DECISION
There were violations of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (unanimously).
The Court also found a violation of the "quality of law" requirement in the Ahlustin case, which concerned audiovisual surveillance in the applicant's office.
As in the case of Bykov v. The Russian Federation (Bykov v. Russia, judgment of 10 March 2009, complaint No. 4378/02), which concerned listening to the applicant's negotiations with a hidden radio transmitter , Akhlyustin was almost not provided, if any, with guarantees in the procedure for appointing and executing a surveillance measure against him. In particular, the legal discretion of the authorities to designate "surveillance" was not limited by any conditions, and its scope and manner of implementation were not determined, and no other specific guarantees were provided. In the absence of specific rules containing safeguards, the Court did not find that the possibility of the applicant's initiation of proceedings to declare an observation unlawful or to exclude his findings from the evidence as obtained illegally met the requirements of the "quality of law" provided for by the law of the Russian Federation.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
The Court also unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention in the case of Konstantin Moskalev, since the applicant did not have an effective remedy which allowed an assessment of whether the surveillance measures against him were "prescribed by law" , and whether they were "necessary in a democratic society" and that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of one of the applicants in Zubkov and others, The forehead of the detention order was not considered promptly.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/775-zubkov-and-others-and-others-akhlyustin-moskalev-konstantin-moskalev-v-russian-federation .
ECHR dómur frá 7. nóvember 2017 um Egill Einarsson gegn Íslandi (kvörtun nr. 24703/15).
Árið 2015 var umsækjandinn aðstoðaður við að undirbúa kvörtunina. Í kjölfarið var kvörtunin send til Íslands.
Málið var með góðum árangri talið kvörtun um synjunina til að fullnægja saksóknarum vegna opinberrar myndar sem sakaður er um að vera nauðgari. Í tilviki var brot á kröfum 8. gr. Samningsins um vernd mannréttinda og grundvallarfrelsis.
Umhverfi um málið
Umsækjandi var frægur maður á Íslandi, útgefinn greinar, blogg og bækur, birtist í kvikmyndum, sjónvarpsþáttum og öðrum fjölmiðlum. Eftir ásakanir um nauðgun og kynferðislega áreitni gegn tveimur konum tóku lögreglustofnun, en báðir málin voru síðan sagt af saksóknara vegna skorts á sönnunargögnum. Stuttu eftir að málið var sagt upp, gaf umsækjandinn viðtal við tímaritið um gjöldin. Á degi birtingu viðtals við þriðja aðila (X) hefur gefið út breytt útgáfa af blaðinu með mynd af undirskrift umsækjanda dónalegt ( "*** nauðgari bastarður") inn á reikninginn hans á félagslega net Instagram, útbreiðslu umsókn myndir. Umsækjandi kom mál fyrir meiðyrði gegn X, en hann var hafnað af rannsókn dómi, taldi Hæstiréttur að undirskrift væri Instagram invective og því gildi dómur, frekar en fullyrðingu um að umsækjandi var í raun sekur um nauðgun. Í samræmi við Federal Law 5. maí 2014 N 101-FZ "um breytingar á Federal Law" um ástand tungumál í Rússlandi "og Vissar Löggjafarþing lögum í Rússlandi í tengslum við endurbætur á lagaleg reglugerð á sviði notkunar rússneska tungumál" í fjölmiðlum Upplýsingar eru bannaðar að nota ósvikinn tungumál. Þar sem í upprunalegum texta er ósvikinn tjáning notuð, yfirlýsingar sem eru fær um að niðurlægja, brjóta gegn heiðri og reisn manneskju, er þetta brot vitnað með undantekningu.
Í hefðbundnu málsmeðferðinni reiddi umsækjandi á meint brot á rétti til að virða einkalíf sitt í bága við 8. gr. Samningsins.
Málum laga
Að því er varðar samræmi við 8. gr. Samningsins. Dómurinn varð að ákveða hvort komið sanngjarna jafnvægi milli réttar kæranda til verndar einkalífs samkvæmt 8. gr samningsins og X á tjáningarfrelsi, tryggt með 10. gr samningsins.
Innlendir dómstólar tóku eftir því að umsækjandi var frægur einstaklingur, þar sem skoðanir hans, þ.mt viðhorf hans gagnvart konum og kynferðislegu frelsi þeirra, vakta athygli og valda deilum. Kvartanir um kynferðislegt ofbeldi leiddu í ljós umræður í samfélaginu þar sem hann tók þátt. Við slíkar aðstæður samþykkti dómstóllinn að mörkin ásættanlegrar gagnrýni í málsmeðferð umsækjanda skulu vera breiðari en sá sem er ekki þekktur víða.
Dómstóllinn samþykkti einnig með íslenskum dómstólum að í ljósi þess að kærandi var frægur maður og skoraði birting er hluti af umræðu um ásakanir um alvarleg glæp, undirskrift undir myndinni snert málefni sameiginleg hagsmunamál.
Kjarni spurningarinnar setja fyrir dómstólum í ríkinu, var ekki hvort það var fyrirsögn "*** nauðgari bastarður" yfirlýsing um staðreynd eða gildi dómur. Hæstiréttur komst að þeirri niðurstöðu að um er að ræða invective í miskunnarlausri opinberri umræðu, sem umsækjandinn sjálfur hvatti til og var því verðmæti dómur. Evrópska dómstóllinn var ósammála þessu mati. Hugtakið "nauðgari" var hlutlæg og staðreynd í eðli sínu og vísar beint til sá sem framdi nauðgunarverk, sem var glæpur samkvæmt lögum Íslands. Þannig má sannreyna sannleiksgildi ásakanirinnar um nauðgun. Þótt dómstóllinn hafi ekki útiloka þann möguleika að slík markmið yfirlýsing um staðreynd, sem málið að ræða, skal umsækjandi gæti verið samhengi flokkuð sem gildi dóm, samhengi þættir sem réttlæta slíka niðurstöðu væri að vera sannfærandi.
Raunverulegt samhengi þar sem undirskriftin var gefin út þar sem fram kemur að umsækjandi hafi verið nauðgari var sakamáli þar sem kærandi var sakaður um glæpinn sem nefndur var í undirskriftinni. Þessi rannsókn var hætt stuttu áður. Hins vegar tók Hæstirétturinn óviðeigandi í huga þennan mikilvæga tímaröð tengingu. Í ljósi uppsögn refsimál gegn kæranda fyrir birtingu viðtals umsækjanda í dagblaðinu The Hæstiréttur ekki útskýra nægilega þá staðreynd grundvöll sem gæti réttlætt mat á notkun á hugtakinu "Tyrant" sem gildi dóm.
8. gr samningsins skal túlka sem þýðir að maður jafnvel umdeild frægt fólk, olli líflegar umræður í tengslum við framkvæmd þeirra og opinberra athugasemdir, ætti ekki að þola opinber gjöld í ofbeldi afbrot, ef þessar staðhæfingar eru ekki studdar af staðreyndum.
Þess vegna, innlendum dómstólum ekki slá sanngjarnt jafnvægi milli réttar kæranda til friðhelgi einkalífs samkvæmt 8. gr samningsins og reglu X á tjáningarfrelsi samkvæmt 10. gr samningsins.
ÁKVÖRÐUN
Í tilviki var brot á kröfum 8. gr. Samningsins (samþykkt með fimm atkvæðum "fyrir" með tveimur - "gegn").
Bætur
Við beitingu 41. gr. Samningsins. Upptaka brots á samningnum er nægilegt sanngjarnt bætur vegna ófjárhagslegrar tjóns.
Heimild til birtingar: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/776-egill-einarsson-gegn-islandi .
ECHR judgment of November 7, 2017 in the case of Egill Einarsson v. Iceland (application No. 24703/15).
In 2015, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Iceland.
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the refusal to satisfy the defamation lawsuit against a public figure accused of being a rapist. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was a famous person in Iceland, published articles, blogs and books, appeared in films, television programs and other mass media. After allegations of rape and sexual harassment against two women, a police investigation began, but both cases were subsequently terminated by the prosecutor for lack of evidence. Shortly after the termination of the second case, the applicant gave an interview to the magazine about the charges. On the day of the publication of the interview, the third person (X) published a modified version of the applicant's signature with an indecent signature ("*** rapist bastard") on his account in the social network Instagram, in the photo spread application. The applicant instituted a defamation proceedings against X, but was refused a first-instance court when the Supreme Court found that the signature in Instagram was an invective and therefore was an appraisal judgment, and not an allegation that the applicant was actually guilty of rape. In accordance with the Federal Law of May 5, 2014 N 101-FZ "On Amending the Federal Law" On the State Language of the Russian Federation "and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation in connection with the improvement of legal regulation in the use of the Russian language" in the mass media information is prohibited from using obscene language. Since in the original text obscene expressions are used, statements that are capable of humiliating, offending the honor and dignity of a person, this fragment is cited with an exception.
In the conventional proceedings, the applicant relied on the alleged violation of the right to respect for his private life in violation of article 8 of the Convention.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 8 of the Convention. The Court had to determine whether there had been a fair balance between the applicant's right to protection of his private life in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention and the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.
The domestic courts noted that the applicant was a famous person whose views, including his attitude towards women and their sexual freedom, attracted attention and caused controversy. Complaints about sexual violence on his part sparked discussions in the society in which he participated. In such circumstances, the Court concurred that the limits of acceptable criticism in the applicant's case must be broader than that of a person who is not widely known.
The Court also agreed with the courts of Iceland that, in the light of the fact that the applicant was a well-known person and the contested publication was part of the discussion on charges of a serious crime, the signature under the photograph concerned a matter of common interest.
The essence of the question put before the courts of the respondent state was not whether the headline "*** rapist bastard" was a statement of fact or an appraisal judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that there was a case of invective in the merciless public debate, which the applicant himself incited, and therefore was a value judgment. The European Court disagreed with this assessment. The term "rapist" was objective and factual in nature, referring directly to the person who committed the act of rape, which was a crime under the laws of Iceland. Thus, the veracity of the allegation of rape could be proved. Although the Court did not rule out the possibility that such an objective statement of fact, as contested in the applicant's case, could be contextually qualified as an appraisal judgment, the contextual elements justifying such a conclusion should have been convincing.
The actual context in which the signature was published stating that the applicant was a rapist was a criminal proceeding in which the applicant was accused of the crime mentioned in the signature. This trial was discontinued shortly before. However, the Supreme Court inappropriately took into account this important chronological connection. In view of the termination of the criminal proceedings against the applicant before the publication of the applicant's interview in the newspaper, the Supreme Court did not sufficiently explain the factual basis that could justify assessing the use of the term "rapist" as an appraisal judgment.
Article 8 of the Convention was to be interpreted as meaning that persons, even controversial famous people, who caused a lively discussion in connection with their behavior and public comments, should not tolerate a public accusation of violent criminal actions if such statements are not supported by facts.
As a result, domestic courts failed to establish a fair balance between the applicant's right to respect for his private life in accordance with article 8 of the Convention and right X to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Convention.
DECISION
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (adopted by five votes "for" with two - "against").
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The establishment of a violation of the Convention is sufficient fair compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/777-egill-einarsson-v-iceland .
Η απόφαση του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων της 31ης Οκτωβρίου 2017 στην υπόθεση Kamenos κατά Κύπρου (καταγγελία αριθ. 147/07).
Το 2007, ο αιτών βοήθησε στην προετοιμασία της καταγγελίας. Στη συνέχεια, η καταγγελία κοινοποιήθηκε στην Κύπρο.
Η υπόθεση εξέτασε επιτυχώς την καταγγελία του δικαστή για την προσαγωγή του σε κατηγορία πειθαρχικού αδικήματος και διενέργεια πειθαρχικών διαδικασιών από το ίδιο δικαστικό όργανο κατά παράβαση της αρχής της αμεροληψίας. Υπήρξε παραβίαση του άρθρου 6 της Σύμβασης για την Προστασία των Δικαιωμάτων του Ανθρώπου και των Θεμελιωδών Ελευθεριών.
Επί της περιπτώσεως
Κατά την περίοδο που αφορούσε τις περιστάσεις της υπόθεσης, ο προσφεύγων ήταν ο δικαστής και πρόεδρος του Δικαστηρίου Βιομηχανικών Διαφορών της Κύπρου. Σχετικά με τις καταγγελίες τρίτων σχετικά με τις πταιστικές πράξεις του δικαστή από την πλευρά του αιτητή, το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο όρισε ανεξάρτητο εξεταστικό δικαστή για την επανεξέταση της υπόθεσης. Μετά την παραλαβή της έκθεσης του ανακριτή και ο ίδιος ο εισαγγελέας αντί να παραχωρήσει το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο απαγγελθεί κατηγορίες για ανάρμοστη συμπεριφορά κατά του καταγγέλλοντος και τον κάλεσε στο Ανώτατο Συμβούλιο των εργασιών, οι οποίες περιλαμβάνονται όλες οι δικαστές του Ανωτάτου Δικαστηρίου. Το Ανώτατο Συμβούλιο Δικαιοσύνης διενήργησε πειθαρχική διαδικασία, διαπίστωσε ότι οι κατηγορίες εναντίον του αιτηθέντος ήταν αποδεδειγμένες και αφού άκουσε τον αιτούντα, τον απέρριψε.
Στις συμβατικές διαδικασίες, ο αιτητής κατήγγειλε βάσει του άρθρου 6 § 1 της Σύμβασης ότι είχε καταδικαστεί και καταδικαστεί από τους ίδιους δικαστές κατά παράβαση της αρχής της αμεροληψίας.
ΖΗΤΗΜΑΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΝΟΜΟΥ
Όσον αφορά τη συμμόρφωση με το άρθρο 6, παράγραφος 1 της Σύμβασης. α) Εφαρμογή. θ) Η ποινική νομική πτυχή. Οι παράνομες ενέργειες αποτελούσαν πειθαρχικό αδίκημα, περιορισμένο και σχετικό με την εκτέλεση των καθηκόντων ενός δικαστή. Η ποινή για τον προσφεύγοντα ήταν απόλυση, αλλά αυτό δεν εμπόδισε τον προσφεύγοντα να ασκήσει ως δικηγόρος. Έτσι, η διαδικασία ήταν καθαρά πειθαρχική και δεν περιλάμβανε την εξέταση ποινικών διώξεων.
ii) Ζήτημα αστικού δικαίου. Σύμφωνα με το Κυπριακό δίκαιο, οι δικαστές, σύμφωνα με την αρχή της αδράνειας, χωρίς την ύπαρξη εξαιρετικών περιστάσεων, είχαν το δικαίωμα να παραμείνουν στην εξουσία για την πλήρη θητεία τους μέχρι την παραίτησή τους. Το αποτέλεσμα της πειθαρχικής διαδικασίας στην υπόθεση του αιτούντος ήταν άμεσα καθοριστικό για τον τρόπο με τον οποίο ασκήθηκε αυτό το δικαίωμα. Έτσι, υπήρξε μια πραγματική και σοβαρή διαμάχη για τον "νόμο" στον οποίο η προσφεύγουσα μπορούσε, για αποδεδειγμένους λόγους, να επικαλεστεί σύμφωνα με το εσωτερικό δίκαιο.
Για να διαπιστωθεί αν υπήρξε «δικαίωμα» στην οποία αναφέρεται η προσφεύγουσα, η «αστική» χαρακτήρα στην αυτόνομη έννοια του άρθρου 6 § 1 της Σύμβασης, το Δικαστήριο εφάρμοσε το κριτήριο που αναπτύχθηκε στο Vilho Eskelinen. Σύμφωνα με αυτή τη δοκιμασία, ένας δημόσιος υπάλληλος αποκλείεται από την προστασία του άρθρου 6 της Σύμβασης μόνον εφόσον πληρούνται σωρευτικά δύο προϋποθέσεις: (α) την εθνική νομοθεσία αποκλείει ρητά την πρόσβαση στη δικαιοσύνη για τη θέση ή κατηγορία προσωπικού, και (β) η εξαίρεση δικαιολογείται από αντικειμενικούς λόγους δημοσίου συμφέροντος.
Το Συνέδριο διαπίστωσε ότι η πρώτη προϋπόθεση της εξέτασης της υπόθεσης Eskelinen, είτε η εθνική νομοθεσία αποκλείει άμεσα την πρόσβαση στο δικαστήριο, δεν πληρούται. Αφού εξέτασε τη νομολογία του, το Δικαστήριο σημείωσε ότι ενώ η ικανότητα του αιτούντος να ζητήσει δικαστικό έλεγχο της προσβαλλομένης αποφάσεως ή πράξεως, προφανώς, είναι καθοριστική για το ζήτημα του κατά πόσον η νομοθεσία της χώρας αποκλειστεί η πρόσβαση σε δικαστήριο, δεν ήταν μια απαραίτητη προϋπόθεση: ακόμη και εν απουσία του δικαστικού ελέγχου του αιτούντος θα μπορούσε να θεωρηθεί ότι έχει πρόσβαση σε δικαστήριο για τους σκοπούς της συμμόρφωσης με τους όρους της πρώτης δοκιμής Eskelinen, αν το ίδιο το πειθαρχικό όργανο ειδική ως «δικαστήριο». Αυτή ήταν η κατάσταση στην περίπτωση του προσφεύγοντος. Παρά το γεγονός ότι η απόφαση της δίκης του Ανωτάτου Δικαστηρίου σχετικά με την απόλυσή του δεν προβλέπει έλεγχο του Ανώτατου Δικαστικού Συμβουλίου περιλαμβάνονται όλες οι 13 δικαστές του Ανωτάτου Δικαστηρίου, και σύμφωνα με την παράγραφο 8 του άρθρου 153 του Συντάγματος της Κύπρος στο πλαίσιο της διαφοράς που είχε δικαστικού χαρακτήρα. Οι δικαστές κλήθηκαν να ακουστούν και να παρίστανται κατά την εξέταση της υπόθεσής τους, απολάμβαναν συνταγματικά δικαιώματα ισοδύναμα με αυτά που προβλέπονται στις παραγράφους 1 έως 3 του άρθρου 6 της Σύμβασης. Το Ανώτατο Δικαστικό Συμβούλιο προέβη σε ακροάσεις, κάλεσε και άκουσε μάρτυρες, αξιολόγησε τα αποδεικτικά στοιχεία και έλυσε τα ερωτήματα που του τέθηκαν σχετικά με τις νομικές αρχές. Έτσι, η πειθαρχική διαδικασία κατά του αιτούντος διεξήχθη από το δικαστήριο για τους σκοπούς της δοκιμασίας του Eskelinen.
Δεδομένου ότι η δοκιμή πρώτη προϋπόθεση Eskelinen δεν πραγματοποιήθηκε, ενώ οι δύο πλευρές της δοκιμής πρέπει να πληρούνται για την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 6 της Σύμβασης της πειθαρχικής διαδικασίας, δεν υπήρχε λόγος να εξεταστεί η δεύτερη πτυχή. Έτσι, το άρθρο 6 § 1 της Σύμβασης από πλευράς αστικού δικαίου εφαρμόστηκε στην πειθαρχική διαδικασία κατά της προσφεύγουσας.
ΛΥΣΗ
Η καταγγελία κρίθηκε παραδεκτή (τεκμηριώνεται με πλειοψηφία).
β) Επί της ουσίας. Των διαδικασιών και των δικαστικών αποφάσεων του Ανώτατου Συμβουλίου ανέφερε ότι ζήτησε να αποφεύγεται η χρήση των διαδικασιών, η οποία είχε το χαρακτήρα της ενοχής, για να αποφευχθεί μια ατμόσφαιρα εχθρότητας και αντιπαράθεσης στο πλαίσιο της δίκης. Σε μια προσπάθεια για την επίτευξη αυτού του στόχου, ο ίδιος αποφάσισε να μην επιβάλει δασμούς στις εισαγγελείς ανακριτή ή άλλο δικαστικού λειτουργού και δεν κάνουν ερωτήσεις στους μάρτυρες αλλιώς παρά με σκοπό την αποσαφήνιση. Όπως σημείωσε το Ανώτατο Συμβούλιο των Δικαστηρίων στην απόφασή του, ουσιαστικά ενήργησε ως ακροατήριο για να ακούσει τη μαρτυρία των μαρτύρων. Επίσης, δεν ζήτησε από την προσφεύγουσα ερωτήσεις. Παρ 'όλα αυτά, το ίδιο ισχύει και για το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο που διατύπωσε κατηγορίες εναντίον του αιτούντος και, στη συνέχεια, συνεδρίασε ως Ανώτατο Δικαστικό Συμβούλιο, διεξήγαγε πειθαρχική διαδικασία. Εξέτασε επίσης και απέρριψε την αντίρρηση του προσφεύγοντος προς τα στοιχεία των τελών. Σε μια τέτοια κατάσταση, η σύγχυση των λειτουργιών της άσκησης κατηγοριών και η εξέταση των θεμάτων της υπόθεσης θα μπορούσε να δικαιολογήσει αντικειμενικά τους φόβους της αμεροληψίας του Ανώτατου Συμβουλίου Δικαιοσύνης.
ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ
Υπήρξε παραβίαση του άρθρου 6 της Σύμβασης (έξι ψήφους υπέρ, μία φορά τη φορά).
ΑΠΟΖΗΜΙΩΣΗ
Κατά την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 41 της Σύμβασης. Το Δικαστήριο χορήγησε στον αιτούντα ποσό 7.800 ευρώ για ηθική βλάβη, απορρίφθηκε η αξίωση χρηματικής ζημίας.
Πηγή δημοσίευσης: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/778-kamenos-kata-kyprou .
The ECHR judgment of 31 October 2017 in the case of Kamenos v. Cyprus (complaint No. 147/07).
In 2007, the applicant was assisted in preparing the complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Cyprus.
The case successfully considered the complaint of the judge for bringing him charges of committing a disciplinary offense and conducting disciplinary proceedings by the same judicial body in violation of the principle of impartiality. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
During the period relevant to the circumstances of the case, the applicant was the judge and chairman of the Industrial Disputes Court of Cyprus. On complaints of third parties on the wrongful actions of the judge on the part of the applicant, the Supreme Court appointed an independent investigative judge to review the case. After receiving the report of the investigating judge and instead of appointing the prosecutor, the Supreme Court itself charged the applicant with wrongful acts against the applicant and summoned him to the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, which included all the judges of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Council of the Judiciary held disciplinary proceedings, found the charges against the applicant proven, and after hearing the applicant, dismissed him.
In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been convicted and convicted by the same judges in violation of the principle of impartiality.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. (a) Applicability. (i) The criminal legal aspect. Illegal actions constituted a disciplinary offense, limited and related to the performance of the functions of a judge. The penalty for the applicant was dismissal, but this did not prevent the applicant from practicing as a lawyer. Thus, the proceedings were purely disciplinary and did not include consideration of criminal charges.
(ii) Civil-law aspect. Under Cyprus law, judges, in accordance with the principle of irremovability, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, had the right to remain in office for the full term until resignation. The outcome of the disciplinary proceedings in the applicant's case was directly decisive for the manner in which this right was exercised. Thus, there was a real and serious dispute over the "law" to which the applicant could, on provable grounds, be invoked in accordance with domestic law.
In order to determine whether the "right" to which the applicant refers was "civil" in the autonomous meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court applied the test developed in the Vilho Esquelinen case. According to this test, a civil servant is excluded from the protection of Article 6 of the Convention only if two cumulative conditions are met: (a) the domestic law expressly excludes access to the court for that post or category of personnel, and (b) the exclusion is justified by objective grounds for the benefit of the state.
The Court found that the first condition of the test of the Eskelinen case, whether the domestic legislation directly excludes access to the court, was not met. Having examined its case-law, the Court noted that while the applicant's ability to request a judicial review of the impugned decision or measure appeared to be decisive for the question of whether the country's legislation excluded access to the court, it was not a sine qua non: even in the absence of a judicial review, the applicant could be considered to have access to the court for the purpose of complying with the first condition of the Esquelinen test, if the disciplinary body itself was qualified as a "court". Such was the situation in the applicant's case. Although the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice to dismiss him did not provide for an audit, the Supreme Court of Justice consisted of all 13 judges of the Supreme Court, and in accordance with Part 8 of Article 153 of the Constitution of Cyprus, the proceedings were of a judicial nature. The summoned judges had the right to be heard and to be present during the examination of their case, they enjoyed constitutional rights equivalent to those provided for in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 6 of the Convention. The Supreme Council of the Judiciary held hearings, summoned and heard witnesses, evaluated the evidence and resolved the questions posed to it with reference to legal principles. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were conducted by the court for the purposes of the test of Eskelinen.
Since the first condition of the Esquelinen test was not met, whereas both aspects of the test must be observed for the non-application of Article 6 of the Convention to disciplinary proceedings, there was no need to consider the second aspect. Thus, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in its civil law aspect was applicable to disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
DECISION
The complaint was declared admissible (substantiated by a majority vote).
(b) Merits. From the proceedings and decision of the Supreme Court of Justice it followed that he sought to avoid using a procedure that was of a criminal nature to prevent an atmosphere of hostility and confrontation in the proceedings. In an effort to achieve this goal, he decided not to place the prosecutor's duties on the investigative judge or other judicial officer and did not ask questions to the witnesses except for the purpose of clarification. As the Supreme Council of the Judiciary noted in its decision, it basically acted as an audience for hearing the testimony of witnesses. He also did not ask the applicant questions. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Supreme Court itself formulated charges against the applicant, and then, sitting as the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, held disciplinary proceedings. It also considered and rejected the applicant's objection to the points of charges. In such a situation, the confusion of the functions of bringing charges and considering the issues in the case could objectively justify the fears of the impartiality of the Supreme Council of Justice.
DECISION
There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (six votes in favor, one at a time).
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the claim for pecuniary damage was rejected.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/779-kamenos-v-cyprus .