Новости от 03 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 03.09.2018 17:11

 

In the case, the applicant successfully complained of the excessive length of pre-trial detention, the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of his detention, the lack of compensation for unlawful detention. The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 5, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

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

In his complaint, the applicant complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention, the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of his detention, the lack of compensation for unlawful detention.

On 22 June 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person), obliging the respondent State to pay the applicant 300 euros compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

The ECHR judgment of 22 June 2017 in the case of Kondratyev v. Russian Federation (аpplication No. 61513/14).


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/796-kondratyev-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to execute or untimely execution of judgments and that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard. There have been violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 

In 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, 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 failure or untimely execution of judicial decisions and the fact that they did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 22 June 2017, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, 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 applicants EUR 14,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,000 to 3,500 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 22 June 2017 in the case of Kalinichenko and Others v. The Russian Federation (аpplications N 52256/07, 2848/08, 26660/08, 58278/08, 56814/09 and 73139/10).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/797-kalinichenko-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the applicants' complaints of inhuman conditions of detention, as well as the lack of effective remedies, excessive length of detention. There have been violations of the requirements of Articles 3, 13, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2008, 2010, 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 (eight) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Some applicants also complained about the lack of effective remedies in this regard, the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of detention.

 

On 22 June 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 articles 3 (prohibition of torture) against all applicants and 13 of the Convention (right to an effective domestic remedy) and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) against certain applicants, obliging the respondent State to pay the applicants a total of 74,200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,000 to 25,000 euros.

 

ECHR Ordinance of 22 June 2017 in the Maznev and Others case against the Russian Federation (аpplications N 48826/08, 54526/10, 43512/13, 51512/13, 58203/13 and 68362/14).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/798-maznev-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the complaint on the cancellation of the judgment in favor of the applicant was successfully considered in view of the newly discovered circumstances. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2004, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was also communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In her complaint, the applicant complained of violations of the right to property and the principle of legal certainty because of the cancellation of the judicial decision rendered in her favor due to newly discovered circumstances.

 

On 13 June 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection), and obliged the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 13 June 2017 in the case of Kravchenko v. The Russian Federation (аpplication No. 23137/04).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/799-kravchenko-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the complaints of the applicants, who were bona fide purchasers of the apartments, that they had been deprived of housing in the form of restitution, which had previously been sold fraudulently, but the applicants were not aware of this at the time of purchase, and that their eviction was a violation of the right to respect for private life. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 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, who were bona fide purchasers of the apartments, complained that they had been deprived of housing for restitution, which had previously been sold fraudulently, but the applicants were not aware of this at the time of purchase. The applicants also argued that their eviction was a violation of the right to respect for private life.

 

On 13 June 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to property protection) and that there was no need to consider a complaint under Article 8 to respect for private and family life), obliging the respondent State to make full restitution of the applicants' rights and to pay each applicant 5,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 13 June 2017 in the case of Lunina and Mukhamedova v. Russian Federation (аpplications N 7359/14 and 69173/14).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/800-lunina-and-mukhamedova-c-russia .

 

 

The applicant's complaint that his detention before the extradition procedure was unlawful deprivation of liberty was successfully considered in the case, since this measure was not carried out in accordance with all requirements of the law due to the absence of an indication of the exact period of such a measure. The case involved a violation of Article 5 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2010, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was also communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In his complaint, the applicant complained that his detention prior to the extradition procedure was unlawful deprivation of liberty, since the measure was not carried out in accordance with all legal requirements due to the absence of an indication of the exact period of such a measure.

 

On 13 June 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 § 1 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person) regarding the period when the exact period was not specified but was not allowed where the time limit was established, and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 13 June 2017 in the case of Koshevoy v. Russian Federation (аpplication No. 70440/10).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/801-koshevoy-c-russia .

 

 

The applicants successfully complained about the fact that their relatives suffering from a number of diseases (including HIV, tuberculosis) were not provided with proper medical care, and as a result they died shortly after they were released from serving the entire term of punishment for their condition health. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2012, the applicants were assisted in preparing the аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaint, the applicants complained that their relatives, suffering from a number of diseases (including HIV, tuberculosis), were not provided with proper medical care, so they died shortly after they were released from serving their entire sentence for health reasons.

 

On 13 June 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 2 of the Convention (the right to life) and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 20,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

Decision of the ECHR of June 13, 2017 in the case of Sergeyeva and Proletarskaya v. Russia (аpplication No. 59705/12).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/802-sergeyeva-and-proletarskaya-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint that the record of her detention was drawn up with considerable delay, and also that she was detained for more than 48 hours without a court decision. There have been violations of article 5, paragraphs 1 and 4, paragraph 1 and subparagraph (d) of paragraph 3 of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

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

 

In her complaint, the applicant complained that the record of her detention had been drawn up with considerable delay, that she had been detained for more than 48 hours without a court decision. The applicant also submitted that the judicial review of the lawfulness of her detention in an appeal procedure did not meet the criterion of urgency and that the subsequent trial was not fair because she could not directly interrogate witnesses.

 

On 13 June 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 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person), paragraph 1 and subparagraph (d) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 Of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 13 June 2017 in the Volkova v. Russian Federation case (аpplication no. 56360/07).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/803-volkova-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully considered the complaints of the applicants for the cancellation of judgments rendered in their favor on the results of the consideration of cases in the first and appellate courts in the framework of civil proceedings, by higher courts in view of newly discovered circumstances. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2009 and 2010, 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 complained about the cancellation of the judgments rendered in their favor by the results of the cases in the first and appellate courts in the civil proceedings, by higher courts in view of newly discovered circumstances.

 

On 13 June 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 1,500 euros in compensation moral harm.

 

The ECHR judgment of 13 June 2017 in the case of Drobyshevskiy and Vitt v. Russia (аpplications No. 52637/09 and 21973/10).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/804-drobyshevskiy-and-vitt-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicant successfully complained that her involvement in three cases of civil liability under the defendants' claims for protection of honor and dignity violated her right to freedom of expression. There has been a violation of Article 10 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 her complaint, the applicant, who is the editor-in-chief of the weekly newspaper Fryazinets, complained that her involvement in three cases of civil liability under the defendants' claims for protection of honor and dignity violated her right to freedom of expression.

 

On 13 June 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (right to freedom of expression). The applicant did not submit claims for just satisfaction.

 

The ECHR judgment of 13 June 2017 in the Cheltsova v. Russian Federation case (аpplication no. 44294/06).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/805-cheltsova-c-russia .

 

 

Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas 2017. gada 5. oktobra spriedums lietā Kaleja pret Latviju (sūdzība Nr. 22059/08).

 

2008. gadā pretendentam palīdzēja sagatavot sūdzību. Pēc tam sūdzība tika paziņota Latvijai.

 

Gadījumā, ja veiksmīgi izskatījusi šo sūdzību par ilgumu kriminālprocesu pret viņu, kā arī to, ka sākotnēji iesniedzējs apšaubīja kā liecinieks krimināllietā, bez tiesībām uz juridisko palīdzību. Ir pārkāpts Cilvēktiesību un pamatbrīvību aizsardzības konvencijas 6. pants.

 

 

 

LIETAS APSTĀKĻI

 


Pieteikuma iesniedzējs strādāja par grāmatvedi būvniecības uzņēmumā un rīkojies kā kasieris. 1997. gada decembrī viņas kolēģi policijai ziņoja, ka ir notikusi nelegāla skaidras naudas izņemšana. 1998. gada 15. janvārī iesniedzējs policijai sniedza rakstisku paskaidrojumu, un 1998. gada 16. janvārī tika uzsākta kriminālprocess. Tolaik pieteikuma iesniedzējs netika informēts par šo lēmumu. Viņai tika izsaukta tikai saruna, un tajā pašā dienā viņai tika uzdots jautājums. Tika reģistrēta liecinieka nopratināšana, un viņa tika informēta par liecinieka tiesībām un pienākumiem. Turpmākajos gados viņa tika uzklausīta kā liecinieks vēl piecas reizes. 2005. gada 27. janvārī viņa tika oficiāli apsūdzēta par līdzekļu piesavināšanos, un viņa saņēma apsūdzētā statusu. Pieteikuma iesniedzēju informēja par viņas aizstāvības tiesībām. 2006. gada novembrī prasītājs tika notiesāts par piesavināšanos, un 2007. gada 29. novembrī Augstākā tiesa noraidīja viņas apelāciju.

 

Tiesā prasītāja sūdzējās par viņas kriminālprocesa ilgumu un ka pirms 2005. gada 27. janvāra viņa tika apšaubīta kā liecinieks un tādēļ tam nebija tiesību uz juridisko palīdzību.

 


LIKUMDOŠANAS JAUTĀJUMI

 


Par atbilstību Konvencijas 6. panta 1. punktam. a) Periods, kas jāņem vērā. Krimināllietās Konvencijas 6. panta 1. punktā paredzēto "saprātīgo termiņu" sāk plūst no personas "apsūdzības" brīža. "Kriminālvajāšana" pastāv no brīža, kad persona ir oficiāli paziņots kompetentai iestādei, ka ir pamats uzskatīt, ka viņš ir izdarījis noziegumu, vai no dienas, kad situācija seja "būtiski ietekmē", akti, kurus varas iestādes izdarījušas rezultātā aizdomām pret viņu.

 

Pieteikuma iesniedzējs netika oficiāli paziņots par jebkādām apsūdzībām pret viņu līdz 2005. gadam. Tomēr vietējās varas iestādes apsvēra iespēju veikt noziedzīgu nodarījumu no paša sākuma kriminālizmeklēšanas. Policija izsauca prasītāju ne tikai 1998. gada 16. janvārī, bet arī vēl piecas reizes nākamajos gados, lai uzņemtos viņas papildu liecības saistībā ar dažādiem iespējamiem uzņēmuma līdzekļu ļaunprātīgas izmantošanas gadījumiem.

 

Viņu arī divreiz saņēma konfrontācija. Valsts iestādēm bija aizdomas pret prasītāju no pirmās kriminālizmeklēšanas dienas un visā sākotnējās izmeklēšanas laikā, lai gan liecinieku procesuālais statuss palika.

 

Ņemot vērā, ka attiecībā uz prasītāju ir aizdomas, par ko liecina, jo īpaši, Tiesas 1998. gada 16. janvāra par kriminālprocesa uzsākšanas, un ka viņa tika vaicāts par savu līdzdalību no paša sākuma kriminālprocesa un visā tās darbības laikā, pašreizējā situācija ietekmēja prasītāju no 1998. gada 16. janvāra par periodu, kas būtu jāņem vērā, sākās 16. janvāris 1998 un beidzās 29 Nov 2007, kad Augstākā tiesa noraidīja kasācijas sūdzību. Tādējādi kriminālprocess ilga deviņus gadus un 10 mēnešus trīs gadījumos.

 

b) procesa ilguma saprātīgums. Pirmstiesas izmeklēšanas pabeigšanai Latvijas varas iestādes uzņēma vairāk nekā septiņus un deviņus mēnešus. Izmeklēšanā nopietnās nepilnības tika novērstas tikai pēc tam, kad lieta tika atgriezta trīs reizes papildu izmeklēšanas darbībām. Tieši šo nepilnību dēļ, kuras nav atrisinātas laikā, provizoriskā izmeklēšana turpinājās ārkārtīgi ilgi, nevis lietas sarežģītības vai daudzu liecinieku līdzdalības dēļ. Ir arī valsts tiesu bezdarbības periodi. Kaut arī prasītāja netika aizturēta laikā, kad viņai ierosinātās kriminālapsūdzības, par viņas apsūdzību tika apdraudēta brīvības atņemšana. Ņemot vērā lietas apstākļus, kriminālprocesa kopējais ilgums pret prasītāju bija pārmērīgs.

 


LĒMUMS

 


Konvencijas 6. panta pārkāpums (vienprātīgi).

 

Attiecībā uz atbilstību Konvencijas 6. panta 3. punkta 1. apakšpunktam un "c" punktam. No 1998. gada 16. janvāra situācija sāka būtiski ietekmēt prasītāju, un tādēļ šajā datumā bija piemērojamas tiesības uz juridisko palīdzību, kas paredzēta Konvencijas 6. panta 3. punkta c) apakšpunktā.

 

Iekšzemes likums attiecīgajā laikā uz lietas apstākļiem, neparedzēja tiesības uz juridisko palīdzību liecinieku, un netiek apstrīdēts, ka prasītājs, kas bija procesuālo statusu liecinieku, nav informēta par tiesībām uz juridisko palīdzību. Tā kā nebija "steidzamu iemeslu", Tiesai bija ļoti rūpīgi jāizvērtē procesa taisnīguma vispārējs novērtējums. Jaunais Kriminālprocesa likums, kurš stājās spēkā 2005. gada 1. oktobrī, tieši paredz liecinieku tiesiskās palīdzības tiesības.

 

Pirmstiesas izmeklēšanas un tiesas procesa laikā pieteikuma iesniedzēja liecība palika nemainīga. Viņa neatzina, ka izdarījusi šo noziegumu jebkurā procesa posmā. Viņas liecība netika izmantota kā pierādījums pret viņu. Pieteikuma iesniedzēja pārliecība tika pamatota ar liecinieku un citu materiālu liecībām. Viņai tika dota iespēja apstrīdēt pret viņu vērstos pierādījumus pirmstiesas izmeklēšanas un tiesas procesa laikā. Šajā sakarā viņa izmantoja savas tiesības visos procesa posmos. Lai gan tas ir nožēlojami, ka iesniedzējs nevarēja saņemt juridisko palīdzību pirmstiesas posmā, kopējais kriminālprocesa taisnīgumu nav neatgriezeniski samazināta trūkst juridiskās palīdzības šajā posmā.

 


LĒMUMS

 


Konvencijas 6. panta prasības nav pārkāptas (vienprātīgi).

 


KOMPENSĀCIJA

 


Piemērojot Konvencijas 41. pantu. Tiesa prasītājai piešķīra EUR 4000 attiecībā uz morālo kaitējumu.

 

 

 

Publicēšanas avots: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/790-kaleja-pret-latviju .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 05 October 2017 in the case of Kaleja v. Latvia (application No. 22059/08).

 

In 2008, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Latvia.

 

The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, as well as the fact that the applicant was initially interrogated as a witness in a criminal case, without the right to legal assistance. 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 applicant worked as an accountant in a construction company and acted as a cashier. In December 1997, her colleagues reported to the police that an illegal cash withdrawal had been made. On 15 January 1998 the applicant gave a written explanation to the police, and on 16 January 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted. At that time, the applicant was not informed of this decision. She was only given a summons for the conversation, and on the same date she was questioned. A record was made of the witness's interrogation, and she was informed of the rights and duties of the witness. In subsequent years she was interrogated as a witness five more times. On January 27, 2005, she was formally charged with misappropriation of funds, and she received the status of an accused. The applicant was informed of her right to counsel. In November 2006 the applicant was convicted of embezzlement, and on 29 November 2007 the Supreme Court rejected her appeal.

 

At the Court, the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against her and that, before 27 January 2005, she had been questioned as a witness and as such did not have the right to legal assistance.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. (a) The period to be taken into account. In criminal cases, the "reasonable time" provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention begins to flow from the time of the "charge" of the person. "Criminal charge" exists from the moment when a person is officially notified by the competent authority about the existence of grounds to believe that he committed the crime or from the moment when the situation of the person is "significantly affected" by the actions committed by the authorities because of suspicions against him.

 

The applicant was not officially notified of any charges against her until 2005. However, the domestic authorities considered the possibility of committing a crime from the very beginning of the criminal investigation. The police summoned the applicant not only on 16 January 1998, but also five more times in subsequent years to take her further testimony in connection with various episodes of alleged misuse of the company's funds.

 

She was also twice summoned for the confrontation. The domestic authorities had suspicions against the applicant from the first day of the criminal investigation and throughout the preliminary investigation, although her procedural status of the witness remained.

 

Whereas, there was a suspicion of the applicant as evidenced in particular by the decision of 16 January 1998 to institute criminal proceedings and that she was interrogated about her involvement from the very beginning of the criminal proceedings and throughout her entire situation, the current situation has influenced the applicant since January 16, 1998. Consequently, the period that must be taken into account began on January 16, 1998, and ended on November 29, 2007, when the Supreme Court rejected her cassation appeal. Thus, the criminal proceedings lasted nine years and 10 months in three instances.

 

(b) Reasonableness of the duration of the proceedings. It took the authorities of Latvia more than seven years and nine months to complete the preliminary investigation. Serious shortcomings in the investigation were eliminated only after the case was returned three times for additional investigative actions. Precisely because of these shortcomings, which were not resolved in time, the preliminary investigation continued exceptionally long, and not because of the complexity of the case or the participation of many witnesses. There have also been periods of inaction by domestic courts. Although the applicant was not detained at the time of the criminal charges brought against her, charges against her were threatened with imprisonment. In view of the circumstances of the case, the overall length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was excessive.

 


DECISION

 


There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (unanimously).

 

Concerning compliance with paragraph 1 and subparagraph "c" of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention. The situation began to affect the applicant significantly from January 16, 1998, and therefore on that date the right to legal assistance provided for in Article 6 (3) (c) of the Convention became applicable.

 

Domestic legislation did not provide for the right to legal assistance for witnesses during the period relevant to the circumstances of the case, and it was not disputed that the applicant, who had procedural status as a witness, was not informed of the right to legal assistance. In the absence of "urgent reasons", the Court had to conduct a very rigorous analysis of the overall assessment of the fairness of the proceedings. The new Criminal Procedure Law, which entered into force on October 1, 2005, directly provides for the right of witnesses to legal assistance.

 

The applicant's testimony remained unchanged during the preliminary investigation and the trial. She did not confess to committing this crime at any stage of the proceedings. Her testimony was not used as evidence against her. The applicant's conviction was based on the testimony of numerous witnesses and other case materials. She was given the opportunity to challenge the evidence used against her during the preliminary investigation and the trial. She used her rights in this regard at all stages of the proceedings. Although it is regrettable that the applicant could not avail herself of legal assistance at the pre-trial stage, the general fairness of the proceedings was not irreparably diminished by the lack of legal assistance at this stage.

 


DECISION

 


The requirements of Article 6 of the Convention were not violated (unanimously).

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/791-kaleja-v-latvia .

 

 

ECHR dommen av 5. oktober 2017 i tilfelle Becker v. Norge (klage nr. 21272/12).

 

I 2012 ble søkeren assistert i klargjøringen av klagen. Etterpå ble klagen formidlet til Norge.

 

I saken ble klagen om journalistens plikt i straffesaken å gi bevis for at han kunne identifisere sine journalistiske kilder, vellykket. Saken innebar et brudd på kravene i artikkel 10 i konvensjonen for beskyttelse av menneskerettigheter og grunnleggende friheter.

 

 

 

OMSTENDIGHETER AV SAKEN

 


I august 2007, søkeren, som var journalisten som skrev en artikkel om selskapet hvis aksjer omsettes på børsen, på grunnlag av en telefonsamtale med X og bokstavene komponert av råd.

 

I juni 2010 var X ansvarlig for å manipulere markedet og insiderhandel. Han ble anklaget for at han tilbudt en advokat utarbeide et brev, som gir inntrykk av at det var skrevet på vegne av en rekke bekymret likviditet, økonomisk interesse av obligasjonseierne og fremtiden for selskapet, men i virkeligheten ble det skrevet utelukkende på vegne av X, som tilhørte en enkeltbinding, ervervet i den siste tiden. Etter publisering av søkerens artikkel falt verdien av selskapets verdipapirer.

 

Søkeren ble senere forhørt av politiet, som informerte henne om at X hadde tilstått å ha gitt henne et brev. Søkeren uttalte at hun ønsket å vitne om at hun hadde mottatt brevet, men nektet å gi ytterligere opplysninger med henvisning til beskyttelse av journalistiske kilder.

 

I straffesaken mot X ble søkeren innkalt som vitne. Med henvisning til landets lovgivning og konvensjonens artikkel 10, nektet hun å vitne. Retten i første instans hevdet at søkeren var forpliktet til å vitne om hennes kontakter med X i forbindelse med brev fra råd. I 2011 avviste Høyesterett søkerens klage og fant ut at det ikke var et brudd på konvensjonen hvis kilden ble kjent, og derfor var det ingen kilde som krever beskyttelse. Hovedmotivet for å beskytte kilder var basert på konsekvensene som kildens opplysning kunne ha hatt på fri distribusjon av informasjon. Søkeren ble bøtelagt 3 700 euro for en forbrytelse mot riktig rettvisestyring.

 

Ved retten hevdet søkeren at hun måtte gi bevis for å identifisere hennes journalistiske kilder, i strid med henne rett etter artikkel 10 i konvensjonen for å motta og formidle informasjon.

 


LOVSAKTER

 


Når det gjelder overholdelse av artikkel 10 i konvensjonen. Saken vedrørte spørsmålet om hvorvidt forstyrrelsen av søkerens rettigheter var nødvendig i et demokratisk samfunn. I denne sammenheng refererer retten til prinsippene for beskyttelse av journalistiske kilder, utviklet i en rekke dommer (Goodwin v. Storbritannia, dom av 27. mars 1996, nr. 17488 / 90, Den europeiske domstols store avdeling i Sanoma Uitgevers BV mot Nederlandsk saken av 14. september 2010, søknad nr. 38224/03 // Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights 2011. N 3 (redaktørens notat), Eurooppløsning The Financial Times Ltd og andre mot Storbritannia, dom av 15. desember 2009, klage nr. 821/03 // Se: Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights av personen 2010. N 5). Domstolen har ikke tidligere hatt anledning til å vurdere et bestemt problem som oppstår i det foreliggende tilfelle. Imidlertid viste hans praksis at beskyttelse av journalister under artikkel 10 i konvensjonen ikke kan elimineres automatisk på grunn av kildens egen oppførsel.

 

Ved vurderingen av om forstyrrelsen var nødvendig, må Retten vurdere om det var relevante og tilstrekkelige grunner til at søkerens forpliktelse til å vitne. Omstendighetene rundt personligheten til X var bare ett element i denne vurderingen. Mens enige med Høyesterett i det faktum kjente kilder kan føre til lettelser noen bekymringer knyttet til tiltakene, noe som tyder på kilden til offentliggjøring, kan kunnskap om personen X ikke være avgjørende for vurderingen av forholdsmessighet.

 

Beskyttelsen gitt til journalister når det gjelder deres rett til å holde sine kilder konfidensielt, er dual, fordi det gjelder ikke bare journalister, men også spesielt til kilden, som frivillig til å hjelpe pressen i å informere offentligheten om saker av allmenn interesse . Følgelig, i forhold til omstendighetene både motivasjonen X står for seg selv som en "kilde" av søkeren, og for å gi dem indikasjoner under undersøkelse, vil graden av beskyttelse i henhold til artikkel 10 i konvensjon som skal anvendes i det foreliggende tilfelle kan ikke anta Det samme nivået som er gitt til journalister assistert av personer hvis identitet er ukjent. Det faktum at X ble anklaget for å bruke søkeren som et verktøy for å manipulere markedet, var viktig for å vurdere proporsjonaliteten. Spørsmålet om utlevering av informasjonskilden oppsto i det foreliggende tilfelle på et tidspunkt da det ikke forelå noen problemer, for eksempel å forhindre ytterligere skade på selskapet eller dets aksjonærer. Kildens skadelige formål var derfor av begrenset betydning på tidspunktet for vedtaket om å forplikte seg til å vitne.

 

Spørsmålet om hvorvidt det var nødvendig å dommen i forhold til søkeren, i hovedsak avhengig av vurdering av behov for hennes vitnesbyrd under etterforskning og påfølgende rettssaker mot X. Sistnevnte er ikke hevdet at ileggelse av en kontroversiell avgjørelse mot søkeren var nødvendig for formålet med garanterer sine rettigheter. Selv om det bør ta hensyn til tyngdekraften av de påståtte lovbrudd, til søkers avslag avsløre sin kilde eller på noen måte komplisere etterforskningen eller saksbehandlingen i forbindelse med X. påtalemyndighet tiltalt X, uten å ha fått noen opplysninger fra søkeren, i stand til å avsløre sin kilde. I de nasjonale domstolene forhindret ingenting dem i å ta hensyn til kostnadene på fordelene. Etter at søkeren hadde anket avgjørelsen krever henne til å vitne, aktor sa at han ikke vil søke om utsettelse av møtet, som aktoratet mente at saken har vært riktig og uten vitnesbyrd om søkeren. Endelig antyder ikke landets domstolers avgjørelser mot X at søkerens nektelse til å bevise ga anledning til noen bekymring fra deres side i forhold til saken eller beviset mot X.

 

Domstolen har tidligere understreket at en avskrekkende effekt vil oppstå i alle tilfeller der journalister er pålagt å bistå med identifisering av anonyme kilder. I det foreliggende tilfelle var avgjørelsen om å avsløre begrenset til å pålegge søkeren plikten til å vitne om hennes kontakt med X, som selv annonserte at han var kilden. Selv om det kan være den offentlige oppfatningen av prinsippet om ikke-avsløring av kilder vil ikke føre til reell skade i denne situasjonen, domstolen konkluderte med at forholdene i denne saken ikke var tilstrekkelig til å pålegge søkeren å avgi forklaring. Motivene gitt til fordel for søkerens forpliktelse til å bevise, selv om det var relevant, var ikke tilstrekkelig. Dermed kan det også tar hensyn til beskyttelsesnivået er akseptabelt ut fra omstendighetene, er retten ikke er overbevist om at den omstridte avgjørelsen ble begrunnet med gjeldende krav til allmenn interesse, og derfor nødvendig i et demokratisk samfunn.

 


VEDTAK

 


Det har vært en overtredelse av konvensjonens artikkel 10 (enstemmig).

 


KOMPENSASJON

 


Ved anvendelse av artikkel 41 i konvensjonen. Retten oppfordret den tiltalte regjeringen til å refundere bøten betalt av søkeren, kravet om erstatning for ikke-økonomisk skade ble ikke reist.

 

 

 

Kilde for publisering: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/792-becker-v-norge .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR judgment of 05 October 2017 in the case of Becker v. Norway (application No. 21272/12).

 

In 2012, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Norway.

 

In the case, the complaint on the obligation of a journalist in the criminal proceedings to give evidence that allows him to identify his journalistic sources was successfully considered. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


In August 2007, the applicant, who was a journalist, wrote an article about a company whose securities were quoted on the exchange, on the basis of a telephone conversation with X and a letter drawn up by counsel.

 

In June 2010, X was charged with manipulating the market and insider trading. He was accused of offering a lawyer to write a letter that created the impression that it was written on behalf of a number of interested bondholders concerned with liquidity, finances and the company's future, although in reality it was written exclusively on behalf of X, to which the only bond belonged, acquired in the recent past. After the publication of the applicant's article, the value of the company's securities fell.

 

The applicant was subsequently interrogated by the police, who informed her that X had confessed to having given her a letter. The applicant stated that she wished to testify that she had received the letter, but refused to provide additional information with reference to the protection of journalistic sources.

 

In the criminal proceedings against X, the applicant was summoned as a witness. Referring to the country's legislation and to Article 10 of the Convention, she refused to testify. The court of first instance ruled that the applicant was obliged to testify about her contacts with X in connection with the letter of counsel. In 2011, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's complaint, finding that there was no violation of the Convention if the source became known, and therefore there was no source requiring protection. The main motive for protecting sources was based on the consequences that disclosure of the source could have had on the free distribution of information. The applicant was fined 3,700 euros for a crime against the proper administration of justice.

 

At the Court, the applicant claimed that she was required to give evidence to identify her journalistic sources, in violation of her right under article 10 of the Convention to receive and impart information.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 10 of the Convention. The case concerned the question of whether the interference with the applicant's rights was necessary in a democratic society. In this connection, the Court refers to the principles governing the protection of journalistic sources, developed in numerous judgments (Goodwin v. The United Kingdom, judgment of 27 March 1996, no. 17488 / 90, the Grand Chamber of the European Court in the Sanoma Uitgevers BV v. The Netherlands case of 14 September 2010, application no. 38224/03 // Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights 2011. N 3 (editor's note), Resolution of the Euro The Financial Times Ltd and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 December 2009, complaint No. 821/03 // See: Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights of the person 2010. N 5). The Court has not previously had occasion to consider a specific issue arising in the present case. However, his case-law indicated that the protection of journalists under article 10 of the Convention can not be automatically eliminated because of the source's own behavior.

 

In assessing whether the interference was necessary, the Court must consider whether there were relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant's obligation to testify. The circumstances surrounding the personality of X were only one element in this assessment. Agreeing with the Supreme Court that the fact that the source was known could have mitigated some of the concerns associated with measures involving the disclosure of the source, the knowledge of the X person could not have been decisive in assessing proportionality.

 

The protection that journalists enjoy when it comes to their right to keep their sources secret is a dual one, since it applies not only to the journalist, but especially to the source who volunteered to help the press inform the public about issues of general interest . Accordingly, the circumstances relating both to the motivation of X to present herself as a "source" to the applicant and to give evidence in the course of the investigation suggested that the degree of protection in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention to be applied in the present case could not be achieved The same level that is given to journalists assisted by persons whose identity is unknown. The fact that X was accused of using the applicant as a tool for manipulating the market was important for assessing proportionality. The issue of disclosure of the source of information arose in the present case at a time when there were no issues, for example, preventing additional damage to the company or its shareholders. The harmful purpose of the source, therefore, was of limited importance at the time of the decision to oblige to testify.

 

The decision on whether the decision rendered in respect of the applicant was necessary mainly depended on the assessment of the need for her testimony in the course of the criminal investigation and the subsequent trial of X. The latter did not claim that a controversial decision against the applicant was necessary for the purpose guaranteeing his rights. Although the gravity of the alleged crimes should be taken into account, the applicant's refusal to disclose her source did not in any way complicate the investigation or prosecution of X. The prosecution authorities charged X without having received any information from the applicant capable of revealing her source. In the domestic courts, nothing prevented them from considering the charges on the merits. After the applicant appealed against a decision obliging her to give evidence, the prosecutor said that he would not ask for the adjournment of the meeting, since the prosecution considered that the case had been properly handled and without the applicant's testimony. Finally, the decisions of the country's courts against X did not indicate that the applicant's refusal to give evidence gave rise to any concern on their part with respect to the case or evidence against X.

 

The Court has previously stressed that a deterrent effect will arise in all cases where journalists are required to assist in the identification of anonymous sources. In the present case, the decision to disclose was limited to placing on the applicant the obligation to testify about her contact with X, who himself announced that he was the source. Although, perhaps, public perception of the principle of non-disclosure of sources will not cause real damage in this situation, the Court concludes that the circumstances in the present case were not sufficient to oblige the applicant to give evidence. The motives given in favor of the applicant's obligation to give evidence, although relevant, were not sufficient. Thus, even considering the level of protection that was acceptable in the particular circumstances of the case, the Court is not convinced that the controversial decision was justified by the prevailing requirement of universal interest and therefore necessary in a democratic society.

 


DECISION

 


There has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (unanimously).

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court ordered the respondent Government to reimburse the fine paid by the applicant, the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was not raised.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/793-becker-v-norway .

 

 

Постановление ЕСПЧ от 03 октября 2017 года по делу "Дмитриевский (Dmitriyevskiy) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 42168/06).

 

В 2006 году заявителю была оказана помощь в подготовке жалобы. Впоследствии жалоба была коммуницирована Российской Федерации.

 

По делу успешно рассмотрена жалоба редактора газеты на нарушение его права на свободу выражения мнения путем его осуждения за возбуждение ненависти либо вражды путем публикации в газете статей, написанных лидерами чеченских сепаратистов. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 10 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.

 

 

 

ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВА ДЕЛА

 

 

 

Заявитель был главным редактором региональной газеты. В 2004 году газета опубликовала две статьи, написанные, как считалось, двумя лидерами чеченских сепаратистов, которые разыскивались в Российской Федерации по обвинению в совершении тяжких преступлений. В первой статье автор призывал чеченцев выбрать мир и избавиться от президента, голосуя против него на текущих президентских выборах. Во второй статье автор утверждал, что чеченцы подвергались постоянному геноциду, организованному Кремлем. Заявитель был обвинен в совершении преступления, предусмотренного частью второй статьи 282 Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации (возбуждение ненависти либо вражды, а равно унижение человеческого достоинства). Заявитель впоследствии был осужден, поскольку эксперт-лингвист, назначенный судом, рассматривающим дело, заключил, в частности, что авторы статей стремились к возбуждению расовой, национальной или социальной розни с применением насилия и использованием террористических методов. Заявитель был приговорен к двум годам лишения свободы условно с четырехлетним испытательным сроком за публикацию статей.

 

В конвенционном разбирательстве заявитель жаловался на нарушение его права на свободу выражения мнения, гарантированного статьей 10 Конвенции.

 

 

 

ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА

 

 

 

По поводу соблюдения статьи 10 Конвенции. Осуждение заявителя представляло собой вмешательство в осуществление им свободы выражения мнения. Европейский Суд исходил из допущения о том, что вмешательство могло рассматриваться как предусмотренное законом, и он готов признать, что оно преследовало цели защиты национальной безопасности, территориальной целостности и общественного порядка и предотвращения беспорядков и преступлений.

 

Чтобы определить, было ли осуждение заявителя по этим статьям "необходимым в демократическом обществе", Европейский Суд особо принял во внимание статус заявителя, характер статей и их формулировки, контекст, в которых они были опубликованы, и подход, которого придерживались суды Российской Федерации для обоснования вмешательства.

 

Заявитель был главным редактором региональной газеты, и в этом качестве в его задачи входило распространение информации и идей по вопросам, представляющим всеобщий интерес. Две статьи, предположительно написанные двумя лидерами чеченских сепаратистов, касались политики правительства в регионе и являлись частью политической дискуссии по вопросу, представляющему всеобщий интерес в широком смысле. Хотя Европейский Суд осведомлен о крайне чувствительном характере данной дискуссии, он отметил, что тот факт, что предполагаемые авторы статей были лидерами движения чеченских сепаратистов и разыскивались в Российской Федерации по обвинению в совершении ряда особо тяжких преступлений, не мог сам по себе оправдать вмешательство в свободу выражения мнения лица, опубликовавшего статьи.

 

Первая статья была написана в достаточно нейтральном и даже примирительном тоне и не могла толковаться как возбуждающая ненависть или нетерпимость по какому-либо основанию или, тем более, как разжигающая насилие, способное спровоцировать беспорядки или подорвать национальную безопасность, территориальную целостность или общественный порядок. Хотя вторая статья была более жесткой и содержала резкие формулировки, такие как выражения "геноцид", "преступное безумие кровавого кремлевского режима", "российский террор", "террористические методы" и "перегибы", неотъемлемой частью свободы выражения мнения является возможность свободных поисков исторической правды и дискуссий о причинах деяний особой тяжести, которые могут приравниваться к военным преступлениям или преступлениям против человечества. Кроме того, политические высказывания по своей природе могут являться противоречивыми и резкими.

 

В целом мнения, выраженные в статьях, не могут расцениваться как призывы к насилию или возбуждение ненависти или нетерпимости, способное привести к насилию. В статьях не было ничего, кроме критики российского правительства и его действий в Чеченской Республике. Эта критика, хотя и могла быть резкой, не выходила за приемлемые рамки, которые были особенно широкими в отношении действий правительства.

 

Что касается подхода, которого придерживались внутригосударственные суды, их решения по делу заявителя имели целый ряд недостатков. Во-первых, ключевые правовые выводы относительно присутствия в спорных статьях элементов "высказываний, провоцирующих ненависть", были сделаны экспертом-лингвистом, а не самими судами. Данная ситуация была неприемлемой, так как все вопросы права должны разрешаться исключительно судами. Во-вторых, ничто в решениях судов страны не подтверждало, что они делали какие-либо попытки оценить, могли ли спорные высказывания угрожать национальной безопасности, территориальной целостности или безопасности населения либо общественному порядку. Следовательно, власти Российской Федерации не основали свое решение на приемлемой оценке всех соответствующих фактов и не привели "относимые и достаточные" мотивы для осуждения заявителя.

 

Наконец, и осуждение заявителя, и примененное к нему суровое наказание могли оказывать сдерживающее воздействие на осуществление журналистами свободы выражения мнения в Российской Федерации и уменьшать решимость прессы открыто обсуждать вопросы всеобщего интереса, в частности, касающиеся конфликта в Чеченской Республике.

 

Таким образом, власти Российской Федерации вышли за пределы свободы усмотрения, предоставленной им в части ограничений дискуссий по вопросам, представляющим всеобщий интерес.

 

 

 

ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ

 

 

 

По делу допущено нарушение статьи 10 Конвенции (принято единогласно).

 

 

 

КОМПЕНСАЦИЯ

 

 

 

В порядке применения статьи 41 Конвенции. Европейский Суд присудил выплатить заявителю 10 000 евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда.

 

 

 

Источник публикации: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/794-dmitriyevskiy-protiv-rossiyskoy-federatsii .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of October 3, 2017 in the case of Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia (application No. 42168/06).

 

In 2006, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

The complaint successfully reviewed the complaint of the editor of the newspaper about the violation of his right to freedom of expression by condemning him for inciting hatred or enmity by publishing in the newspaper articles written by the leaders of the Chechen separatists. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 


CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant was the editor-in-chief of the regional newspaper. In 2004, the newspaper published two articles written, it was believed, by the two leaders of the Chechen separatists, who were wanted in the Russian Federation on charges of committing grave crimes. In the first article, the author called on the Chechens to choose peace and get rid of the president, voting against him in the current presidential election. In the second article, the author claimed that the Chechens were subjected to a constant genocide organized by the Kremlin. The applicant was charged with committing a crime under part two of article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity). The applicant was subsequently convicted, since the expert linguist appointed by the court considering the case concluded that the authors of the articles sought to incite racial, national or social discord with the use of violence and the use of terrorist methods. The applicant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on probation with a four-year probation period for the publication of articles.

 

In the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 10 of the Convention. The applicant's conviction constituted an interference with the exercise of his freedom of expression. The Court proceeded from the assumption that the interference could be considered as provided by law, and he is ready to recognize that it pursued the goal of protecting national security, territorial integrity and public order and preventing riots and crimes.

 

In order to determine whether the applicant's conviction under these articles was "necessary in a democratic society", the Court specifically took into account the applicant's status, the nature of the articles and their wording, the context in which they were published, and the approach taken by the courts of the Russian Federation to justify interference.

 

The applicant was the editor-in-chief of the regional newspaper, and in this capacity his task was to disseminate information and ideas on issues of common interest. Two articles, allegedly written by the two leaders of the Chechen separatists, concerned the government's policy in the region and were part of a political discussion on a matter of general interest in a broad sense. Although the Court is aware of the extremely sensitive nature of this discussion, he noted that the fact that the alleged authors of the articles were the leaders of the movement of Chechen separatists and were wanted in the Russian Federation on charges of committing a number of particularly serious crimes could not in itself justify interference in freedom the expression of the opinion of the person who published the articles.

 

The first article was written in a fairly neutral and even conciliatory tone and could not be interpreted as inciting hatred or intolerance on any grounds or, even more, as inciting violence, capable of provoking unrest or undermining national security, territorial integrity or public order. Although the second article was more rigid and contained harsh language, such as the expressions "genocide", "criminal madness of the bloody Kremlin regime", "Russian terror", "terrorist methods" and "excesses", an integral part of freedom of expression is the possibility of free searches for historical truth and discussion about the causes of acts of special gravity that can be equated with war crimes or crimes against humanity. In addition, political statements by their nature can be contradictory and abrupt.

 

In general, the opinions expressed in the articles can not be regarded as appeals to violence or the incitement of hatred or intolerance that can lead to violence. The articles contained nothing but criticism of the Russian government and its actions in the Chechen Republic. This criticism, although it could be sharp, did not go beyond an acceptable framework that was particularly broad in relation to the actions of the government.

 

As for the approach followed by the domestic courts, their decisions in the applicant's case had a number of shortcomings. First, the key legal conclusions regarding the presence in the controversial articles of elements of "hate speech" were made by a linguistic expert, and not by the courts themselves. This situation was unacceptable, since all questions of law should be resolved exclusively by the courts. Secondly, nothing in the decisions of the courts of the country did not confirm that they made any attempts to assess whether the controversial statements could threaten the national security, territorial integrity or security of the population or public order. Consequently, the authorities of the Russian Federation did not base their decision on an acceptable assessment of all relevant facts and did not give "relevant and sufficient" reasons for the applicant's conviction.

 

Finally, both the applicant's conviction and severe punishment applied to him could have a deterrent effect on the exercise by journalists of freedom of expression in the Russian Federation and reduce the determination of the press to openly discuss issues of general interest, in particular concerning the conflict in the Chechen Republic.

 

Thus, the authorities of the Russian Federation have exceeded the limits of the discretion granted to them in terms of restrictions on discussions on issues of general interest.

 


DECISION

 


There has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (unanimously).

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant.

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/795-dmitriyevskiy-v-russia-2 .