Новости от 04 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 04.09.2018 11:56

 

The case successfully examined the complaints of the applicants for the cancellation of judgments rendered in their favor by the results of the consideration of cases in the first and appellate instances in the framework of civil proceedings, by way of supervision by higher courts because of improper application of substantive law or incorrect evaluation of evidence by lower courts. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

In 2006 and 2007, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

In their complaints, the applicants (four persons) complained about the cancellation of the judgments rendered in their favor by the results of the consideration of cases in the first and appellate instances in the framework of civil proceedings, by way of supervision by higher courts because of improper application of substantive law or incorrect evaluation of evidence by lower courts.

On June 13, 2017, on the basis of complaints filed 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) against all the applicants, as well as the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to protection of property) against two applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 5,500 as just satisfaction. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,500 to 5,000 euros.

The ECHR judgment of 13 June 2017 in the case of Shorokhova and Others v. Russia (аpplications no. 42968/06, 49272/06, 2319/07 and 51217/07).


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/812-shorokhova-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicant's complaint that he was deprived of the right to compensation for unlawful detention was successfully dealt with, because, due to mistakes in the second conviction, the applicant actually served a longer sentence than was established by law. There has been a violation of Article 5 § 5 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 he had been deprived of the right to compensation for unlawful detention, since, owing to errors in the second sentence, the applicant actually served a longer sentence than was established by law.

 

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 5 § 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 5,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 13 June 2017 in the case of Stadnik v. Russia (аpplication No. 41509/06).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/813-stadnik-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the complaints of the applicants for the cancellation of judgments rendered in their favor by the results of disputes over pension payments, due to new circumstances in the form of explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as violation of property rights. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 

In 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 (five people) complained about the cancellation of the judgments rendered in their favor by the results of disputes over pension payments, in view of the new circumstances in the form of explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Individual applicants complained of a violation of their property rights.

 

On 13 June 2017, on the basis of the complaints submitted 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) in respect of all the applicants, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection ) in respect of certain applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 9,500 as just satisfaction. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 euros.

 

The ECHR judgment of 13 June 2017 in Tsarev and Others v. Russia (аpplications no. 39979/08, 43101/08 and 47759/08).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/814-tsarev-and-others-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicant successfully complained that the judicial verification of the reasonableness of his detention in the appellate instance did not meet the urgency criterion. There has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 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 that the judicial verification of the reasonableness of his detention in the appellate instance did not meet the criterion of urgency.

 

On 13 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 5 § 4 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 2,250 euros compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

 

Decision of the ECHR of June 13, 2017 in the case of Chayka v. Russia (аpplication No. 37042/14).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/815-chayka-c-russia .

 

 

The case successfully examined the complaints of the applicants for the cancellation of the judgments rendered in their favor by the results of the consideration of cases in the first and appellate courts in the framework of civil proceedings, by way of supervision by higher courts because of the incorrect application of substantive law. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 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 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 way of supervision by higher courts because of the incorrect application of substantive law.

 

On 13 June 2017, on the complaints submitted 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) against the applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 1,500 euros as just satisfaction.

 

The ECHR judgment of 13 June 2017 in the case of Fomin and Sivayeva v. Russia (аpplications N 3141/08 and 41640/08).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/816-fomin-and-sivayeva-c-russia .

 

 

The applicant's complaint on inhuman conditions of detention in one of the pre-trial detention centers and in two places of serving the sentence was successfully considered in the case. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

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

 

In his complaint, the applicant complained of inhuman conditions in one of the pre-trial detention centers of the city of Novokuznetsk and two places of punishment serving in the towns of Nizhny Tagil and Yekaterinburg.

 

On June 8, 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court, having accepted a unilateral declaration by the Government of the Russian Federation concerning the inadequate conditions of the applicant's detention in the remand center and awarded € 4,480 in compensation, excluded that part of the complaint from the list of cases to be considered. The Court also unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in two other cases and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 13,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

ECHR judgment of June 08, 2017 in the case of Volkov v. Russia (аpplication No. 44137/12).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/817-volkov-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the complaint on inhuman conditions of the applicant's detention in places of serving the sentence in various periods of his detention was successfully considered. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

In 2016, 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 of inhuman conditions of detention in places of serving punishment during various periods of his imprisonment.

 

On June 8, 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in only one period of the applicant's detention and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

ECHR ruling of June 8, 2017 in the case of Karmannikov v. Russia (аpplication No. 2418/16).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/818-karmannikov-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the complaint successfully examined the applicant's deprivation of the detainee's ability to present his position as a defendant in a civil case, the violation of the applicant's right to respect for family life as a result of a search in his apartment, conducted without a court decision. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6, Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

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

 

In his complaint, the applicant, who was the head of the Civil Law Department of the Cheboksary State University and who was held in pre-trial detention on suspicion of receiving a bribe, complained that he was prevented from presenting his position as a defendant in civil proceedings, which his paternity was established. The applicant also claimed that the search in his apartment, conducted without a judicial decision, violated his right to respect for family life.

 

On June 6, 2017, on the complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 06 June 2017 in the case of Urukov v. The Russian Federation (аpplication no. 20489/07).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/819-urukov-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicant's complaint that he had not been provided with adequate medical care during his detention pending trial was successfully considered, because his illness was not properly treated. The case involved violations of the requirements of articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

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

 

In his complaint, the complainant, suffering from various diseases, including those requiring constant medical supervision, complained that during his detention in custody before the trial he was not provided with proper medical assistance, since proper treatment of his illnesses was not carried out. The applicant also submitted that he did not have an effective remedy in this regard.

 

On 06 June 2017, on the application lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

The ECHR judgment of 06 June 2017 in the case of Barsukov v. The Russian Federation (аpplication No. 51252/09).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/820-barsukov-c-russia .

 

 

In the case, the applicants successfully complained that they had been deprived of the apartment they had purchased from a person who did not have any rights to it, but that the applicants were not aware of this in the course of the transaction to purchase the apartment, and that the judgment, authorized their eviction, but not performed due to the conclusion of a lease agreement with the owner of the housing in the person of the authorities of Moscow, was a violation of the right to respect for family 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 2010, the applicants were assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

 

In their complaint, the applicants, who were bona fide purchasers, complained that they were deprived of an apartment that they had purchased from a person who did not have any rights to it, but this was not known to the applicants when making a transaction for the purchase of an apartment. The applicants also argued that the court decision authorizing their eviction, but not executed due to the conclusion of the lease agreement with the owner of the housing in the person of the Moscow authorities, was a violation of the right to respect for family life.

 

On June 6, 2017, on the complaint submitted 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 ordered a full restitution of the applicants' rights, by canceling the eviction order, obliging the respondent State to pay the first applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

Decision of the ECHR of 06 June 2017 on the case "Nikolayevy (v. Russia) v. Russian Federation" (аpplication No. 49529/10).

 


Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/821-nikolayevy-c-russia .

 

 

Enver Şahin / Türkiye davasında 30 Ocak 2018 tarihli AİHM Kararı (23065/12 sayılı şikayet).

 

2012 yılında başvurucu şikayetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.

 

Durumda, başvuranın, okulun tesislerine erişim konusunda engelli öğrenci olarak ihtiyaçlarının özel bir değerlendirmesinin yapılmaması konusundaki şikayeti başarılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunması Sözleşmesi'nin 14. maddesinin ihlali söz konusudur.

 

 

 

OLAYIN DURUMU

 


Başvuranla yapılan çalışma sırasında, bacaklarının felç olduğu bir kaza meydana gelmiştir. 2007 yılında, gerekli değişiklikleri yapması ve öğretim tesislerinin kendisine sunulması için çalışma isteği ile üniversiteye resmen başvurdu. Üniversite yönetiminin kendisine kısa vadede çalışmaları yürütmek üzere yetersiz bakiye bulunması ve bir kişisel asistan tahsis etmek bir destek olarak başvuru sunulduğunu söyledi. 2010 yılında, İdare Mahkemesi, üniversite binası engellileri yanı sıra mimarisi ile ilgili tedbirler, uygulanacak gerçeğini yardımcı olmak için teknik yönerge yürürlüğe girmesinden önce inşa edilmiş olduğu gerçeğine, diğer şeyler arasında, gerekçe, başvuru sahibinin şikayeti reddetmiştir "araç izin verdiği ölçüde" (şimdiye kadar belirli bir plan geliştirilmemiş olsa da).

 


HUKUK SORUNLARI

 


takdir yetkililerin özgürlüğü rağmen, Mahkeme tam miktarı kanunen gerekli tesislerin dönüşüm tüm önemli eserlerini tamamlamak için gereken kadar üniversite binaları erişim konusu çözümsüz kalabildiğini gerçeğini kabul edemedi. Sözleşme yükümlülüklerinin yerine getirilmesi davalı Devletin makamları tarafından olumlu önlemlerin alınmasını gerektirir durumlarda, ikincisi sadece pasif kalamaz.

 

Madde 14 her türlü ayrımcılığı içermektedir engellilik gerekçesiyle hangi ayrımcılık altında Engellilerin Haklarına Dair Birleşmiş Milletler Sözleşmesi ışığında düşünülmelidir "makul konaklama reddi dahil." "Makul düzenleme" belirli bir durumda ihtiyaç duyulan verme, anlamına gelen "gerekli ve uygun değişiklik ve düzenlemeleri tüm insan hakları ve temel özgürlüklerin engelli diğer kişilerle eşit şekilde yararlanılmasını veya egzersiz sağlamak amacıyla, ölçüsüz veya aşırı bir yük yüklemiyordu."

 

Fiziksel ve fiziksel olmayan, henüz ulusal yetkililer bu yaptığımız seçimler özellikle dikkatli olmak gerekir hem çeşitli şekillerde olabilir Mahkemesi'nin görevi, böyle bir "makul konaklama" belirlemek için olmadığı gerçeği rağmen Etkilenen kişilerin belirli savunmasızlığını dikkate alarak küre.

 

Gerçekten de, üniversite başvuranın talebini doğrudan reddetmemiş, ancak kişisel asistanın sağlanmasına destek vermiştir. Ancak, uluslararası belgeler dava dosyasında hiçbir şey bu başvuranların gerçek ihtiyaçlarının değerlendirilmesi ve onun için olası sonuçları dürüst değerlendirilmesi ile başlar kanıtlamaz, çünkü diğer önlemler arasında, üçüncü bir tarafın yardım Üniversitesi tarafından yapılan teklif, bu kategoriye ait değil anılacaktır rağmen güvenlik, haysiyet ve bağımsızlık. Bu durumda başvuru sahibi ağır yaralandı olmasına rağmen, yetkililer dikkate engelli insanlara bağımsız yaşam sürme fırsatı veren nin önemini almadı ve tam özgüven geliştirmek ve özgüvenlerini arttırmak. Bu kavramlar Engellilerin ve Avrupa Konseyi Birleşmiş Milletler Sözleşmesi'nin önerilerin temelini oluşturmaktadır yanı sıra onuru ve kişisel bağımsızlık Protokolü N 2. maddesi ile bazı benzerlikler vardır, Sözleşmenin 8. ilişkin özellikle Avrupa Adalet Divanı içtihadı önemli bir yer işgal Sözleşmeye 1.

 

Bu sorunları göz ardı ederek, İdare Mahkemesi dikkatlice başvuran çıkarları ve her hangi bir çıkar arasındaki adil denge sorununu dikkate alınmaz.

 


KARAR

 


AİHS'nin 14. maddesinin ihlal durumunda (one "" altı oyla kabul edilen - "karşı").

 


TAZMİNAT

 


Mahkeme, Sözleşme'nin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında, başvurana manevi tazminat olarak 10.000 avro tazminat ödenmesine karar vermiştir.

 

 

 

Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/806-enver-sahin-turkiye-davasinda .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR Decree of 30 January 2018 in the case of Enver Sahin v. Turkey (application No. 23065/12).

 

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

 

In the case, the applicant's complaint on the failure to carry out a specific individual assessment of his needs as a disabled student regarding access to the premises of the school was successfully considered. There has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


During the study with the applicant, an accident occurred, as a result of which his legs paralyzed. In 2007, he formally applied to the university with the request to carry out the necessary alterations and work to make the teaching facilities available to him. The university administration responded that it did not have enough funds to carry out works in the short term, and suggested that the applicant, as a support, allocate a personal assistant. In 2010, the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint, citing, among other things, the fact that the university building had been built before the entry into force of the technical guidelines for assisting persons with disabilities, as well as the fact that measures relating to architecture would be implemented, "as soon as the means permit" (although no specific plans have been developed so far).

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Despite the discretion of the authorities, the Court could not agree that the issue of access to the university buildings could remain unresolved until the full amount necessary to complete all major works for the conversion of premises required by law. In cases where the fulfillment of obligations under the Convention requires the adoption of positive measures by the authorities of the respondent State, the latter can not simply remain passive.

 

Article 14 of the Convention should be considered in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, according to which discrimination on the basis of disability includes all forms of discrimination, including "denial of reasonable accommodation". "Reasonable accommodation" means the introduction, when necessary in a particular case, of "necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments that do not become a disproportionate or unjustified burden, in order to ensure the realization or exercise of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms."

 

Despite the fact that the task of the European Court is not to define such a "reasonable accommodation" that could take various forms, both physical and non-physical, nevertheless, domestic authorities should be particularly careful in choosing what they are doing in this sphere, taking into account the particular vulnerability of the affected persons.

 

Indeed, the university did not reject the applicant's request directly, but offered him support with the provision of a personal assistant. However, although the international legal instruments mention, among other measures, the assistance of a third person, the proposal made by the university is not relevant to this category, since nothing in the case proves that this was preceded by an assessment of the real needs of the applicant and an honest assessment of the possible consequences for his security, dignity and independence. Even though the applicant was not seriously injured in this case, the authorities did not take into account the paramount importance of granting persons with disabilities the opportunity to lead an independent way of life and comprehensively develop self-esteem and improve their self-esteem. These concepts underlie the recommendations of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Council of Europe, and dignity and personal independence are important in the Court's case-law, in particular with regard to Article 8 of the Convention, which has some similarity with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 

Ignoring these issues, the Administrative Court did not carefully consider the issue of a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and any competing interests.

 


DECISION

 


In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention (adopted by six votes "for" at one - "against").

 


COMPENSATION

 


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

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/807-enver-sahin-v-turkey .

 

 

EJEB ítélete január 23-2018 esetében „A magyar fél farkú kutya (Magyar Ketfarku Kutya Part) ellen Magyarországon” (kérelmezői N 201/17).

 

2017-ben a kérelmező felet segítette a panasz előkészítésében. Ezt követően a panaszt közölték Magyarországgal.

 

Abban az esetben tekinthető sikeresnek elleni panaszát bírság kiszabása egy politikai párt, mert az sérti a méltányosság a titkos választásokat a választók azt a lehetőséget, hogy kap egy alkalmazás a mobiltelefonok, amely lehetővé teszi, hogy névtelenül feltöltheti és megoszthatja fotóit szavazatok. Abban az esetben sérti a 10. cikk az Egyezmény az emberi jogok és alapvető szabadságok.

 

 

 

tailed Dog Party - rövidítve MKKP, szatirikus politikai párt Magyarországon, ami létezik de facto 2006-ban és 2014-ben hivatalosan bejegyzett. Párt tagjai részt főleg létrehozása egy képet graffiti, poszterek paródiák tipikus szlogenek a magyarországi politikai elit, nyomja az abszurd ötlet a választási vagy hogy egy vicces nyilatkozatot.

 


AZ ESET KÖRÜLMÉNYEK

 


Magyarország 2016-ban népszavazást tartott a bevándorlók Európai Unióba történő áttelepítésére vonatkozó tervről. Röviddel a népszavazás, a felperes, egy politikai párt, feltéve szavazók a lehetőséget, hogy egy alkalmazás a mobiltelefonok, amelyek lehetővé teszik a névtelen feltöltheti és megoszthatja fotóit szavazatok. Miután panaszok magánszemélyek az Országos Választási Bizottság fél kérelmező bírságot kapott, mert sérti a méltányosság választások és titkos szavazással választják.

 

Az Európai Bíróságon a felperes azt kifogásolta, hogy a bírság alkalmazása az Egyezmény 10. cikkében foglaltak szerint sérti a véleménynyilvánításhoz való jogát.

 


JOGSZABÁLYOK

 


Az egyezmény 10. cikkének követelményeinek való megfelelés tekintetében. Alkalmazás a mobiltelefon került kifejlesztésre a kérelmező fél, vagyis a szavazók az információs és kommunikációs technológiák, hogy véleményt cseréljenek az elhelyezése névtelen fényképeket érvénytelen szavazatok. Így a bejelentés kommunikatív értéket képvisel, és ezért véleményt nyilvánított az egyezmény 10. cikkével védett közérdekű ügyben. E tekintetben a bírság alkalmazása a véleménynyilvánítás szabadságát kérelmező fél jogának beavatkozása volt. Az Európai Bíróság előtt feltett kérdés az volt, hogy az interferencia legitim célt követett-e.

 

Magyar hatóságok azzal érveltek, hogy a célja az elfogadott intézkedések vonatkozásában a párt, a felperes, az volt, hogy biztosítsa a szabályos magatartása a szavazás módjáról és megfelelő használatát szavazási fordulót, és így a cél „hogy megvédje a mások jogait.” Magyar Legfelsőbb Bíróság (Kúria) azt mondta, hogy a választópolgár személyazonosságát nem sikerült megállapítani révén névtelenül feltöltött fotók, és bár a kiadvány képek szavazatok alkalmazása révén a mobiltelefon sérti azt az elvet a megfelelő jogok gyakorlása, ez nem befolyásolja a tisztességes választások lebonyolításának. A Számvevőszék nem látott okot, hogy ezzel egyetértsen, és egyetértett abban, hogy a felperes intézkedései nem befolyásolják a népszavazás titkosságát vagy tisztességességét. Annak ellenére, hogy a hazai hatóságok megállapították, hogy a használata szavazatok semmilyen más célra, mint a szavazás, megsérti bekezdés „e” 1. bekezdés 2. cikk szóló törvény a választási eljárás, a magyar hatóságok nem bizonyították erős összefüggés elve a nemzeti jog és a kitűzött , amely kimerítően szerepel az Egyezmény 10. Cikkének 2. bekezdésében. Következésképpen a kérelmező félre alkalmazott szankció nem felel meg az egyezmény 10. cikkének (2) bekezdésében foglalt követelményeknek.

 


HATÁROZAT

 


Abban az esetben, ha megsértették az Egyezmény 10. cikkében foglalt követelményeket (egyhangúlag elfogadták).

 


KÁRTÉRÍTÉS

 


A 41. cikk az egyezmény alapján a Bíróság elnyerte a kérelmező fél, 330 euró tekintetében vagyoni kár, a követelmény nem vagyoni kár nem kerül felszámolásra.

 

 

 

Kiadványforrás: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/808-magyar-ketfarku-kutya-part-ellen-magyarorszagon .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 23 January 2018 in the case of the Hungarian Dwarf Dog Party (Magyar Ketfarku Kutya Part v. Hungary) (application No. 201/17).

 

In 2017, the applicant party was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Hungary.

 

In the case, a complaint was successfully considered for imposing a fine on a political party for violating the principles of fairness of elections and secrecy of voting by providing voters with an opportunity to receive an application to mobile phones that allows anonymously upload and exchange photos of ballots. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

The batch of a two-tailed dog is abbreviated as MKKP, a parody political party in Hungary, which has existed de facto since 2006 and officially registered in 2014. Members of the party are mainly engaged in depicting graffiti and creating parody posters on the typical slogans of the political elite of Hungary, putting forward absurd ideas in elections or making ridiculous official statements.

 


CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


In 2016, Hungary held a referendum on the plan for resettlement of migrants to the European Union. Shortly before the referendum, the applicant, the political party, provided voters with an opportunity to receive an application to mobile phones that could anonymously upload and share photos of ballots. After complaints of a private person to the National Electoral Commission, the applicant party was fined for violating the principles of fairness of elections and the secrecy of the ballot.

 

In the European Court, the applicant party complained that the application of the fine violated her right to freedom of expression as provided for in Article 10 of the Convention.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention. The application to the mobile phone was developed by the applicant party precisely so that voters can exchange views through information and communication technologies through the placement of anonymous photographs of invalid ballots. Thus, the application had a communicative value and, therefore, was an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest protected by Article 10 of the Convention. In this regard, the application of the fine was an interference with the right of the applicant party to freedom of expression. The question before the European Court was whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim.

 

The Government argued that the aim of the measure taken with respect to the applicant party was to ensure the orderly conduct of the voting procedure and the proper use of ballots for voting, and thus the purpose was "to protect the rights of others." The Supreme Court of Hungary (Kuria,) stressed that the identity of the voters could not be ascertained with the help of anonymously uploaded photos, and that although the publication of ballot photos through an attachment to a mobile phone was a violation of the principle of proper exercise of rights, it did not affect the fair conduct of the elections. The Court did not see any reason to disagree with this and agreed that the applicant's actions had no effect on the secrecy or fairness of the referendum. Despite the fact that the domestic authorities determined that the use of ballot papers for purposes other than voting violated Article 2 (1) (e) of the Election Law Act, the Hungarian authorities did not establish convincingly the relationship between this principle of domestic law and the objectives , exhaustively listed in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention. Consequently, the sanction applied to the applicant party did not comply with the requirements of article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

 


DECISION

 


In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (unanimously adopted).

 


COMPENSATION

 


In application of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant party EUR 330 in respect of pecuniary damage, no claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was claimed.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/809-hungarian-dwarf-dog-party-v-hungary .

 

 

Sodba ESČP z dne 16. januarja 2018 v zadevi "Ceferin (Ceferin) proti Sloveniji" (pritožba št. 40975/08).

 

V letu 2008 je pritožniku pomagal pri pripravi pritožbe. Kasneje je bila pritožba posredovana Sloveniji.

 

Očitek tožeče stranke, da so globe, ki se uporabljajo za tožečo stranko za neupravičeno sodišče, uspešno posega v njegovo pravico do svobode izražanja. Primer je bil kršitev zahtev člena 13 Konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin.

 

 

 

OKOLIŠČINE DELA

 


Tožeča stranka je v kazenskem postopku delovala kot zagovornik obrambe. On je bil kaznovani zaradi žalitve sodišča v dveh ločenih poskusih, kot je navedeno v kritiki izvedencev in tožilstva kot del ustnih in pisnih pripomb odvetnika. Med običajnim postopkom se je pritožnik pritožil zaradi kršitve njegove pravice do svobode izražanja.

 


VPRAŠANJA ZAKONA

 


Skladnost s členom 13 Konvencije. Globe, ki se uporabljajo za prosilca za nespoštovanja sodišča, pomeni poseg v njegovo pravico do svobode izražanja, ki je predpisan z zakonom (78. člena zakona o kazenskem postopku) in zasleduje legitimen cilj ohranjanje avtoritete sodstva in zaščito ugleda in pravic udeležencev sojenja.

 

Glede vprašanja, ali je potreben poseg v pravico tožeče stranke v demokratični družbi, je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so domača sodišča ni zagotovila ustrezne in zadostne razloge za utemeljitev omejitev pravice tožeče stranke do svobode izražanja, in zato niso bili doseženi na podlagi meril, določenih v sodni praksi Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, pravično ravnotežje med, na eni strani, da je treba za zaščito avtoritete sodstva in potrebo po zaščiti pravico tožeče stranke, da izrazijo th eniya, na drugi strani.

 

Pri oblikovanju tega sklepa Sodišče upošteva naslednje dejavnike.

 

(a) Vložnik je izpodbijane izjave predložil v okviru sojenja, v katerem je deloval kot odvetnik osebe, obtožene za trije umori. Tako so bile njegove pripombe narejene med razpravo, kjer je seveda treba zaščititi pravice njegove stranke z vsemi sredstvi. Poleg tega so bile izjave tožeče stranke podane le v sodni dvorani, v nasprotju s kritiko sodnika, na primer, izražena v medijih. V obeh postopkih za obtožbo neupravičenega sodišča domača sodišča niso upoštevala konteksta in oblike, v katerem so bile pripombe tožeče stranke.

 

(b) Očitno domača sodišča niso zagotovila več zaščite za pritožene izjave, namenjene tožbam tožilca. Kljub temu pa običajno, da se meje sprejemljive kritike v nekaterih primerih bolj obsežna glede javnih uslužbencev kot v odnosu do fizičnih oseb, še toliko bolj velja za kritizirati tožilec obtožil. Podobno, ob upoštevanju dejstva, da so bili, ki deluje po svoji uradni dolžnosti, in glede na morebiten vpliv svojih mnenj o izidu postopka v kazenski zadevi, je bilo strokovne priče prenašati kritiko svojih dolžnosti.

 

(C) Sporna izjava ni mogoče razlagati kot neodplačnih ali osebnih napadov se šteje, da opravlja edini namen je užaliti izvedence, tožilca ali sodišče. Prav tako jih ni mogoče šteti za proprimerne nerazumne. Še posebej, če temeljijo na dejstvih, ki jih navaja tožeča stranka, da bi ogrozili verodostojnost strokovnjakov in prepreči razkritje rezultatov raziskav na poligrafu. Ali so bila ta dejstva zadostna za utemeljitev očitanih izjav - to vprašanje bi morale domače sodišče ustrezno preučiti.

 

(D) Večina spornih izjav je bilo ustno, vendar ni bilo nobenega znaka, da je sodnik v seji odzval na kritike. Poleg tega je presenetljivo, da tožeči stranki ni bila dana možnost, da pojasni svoja dejanja ali se ščiti, preden je bil kaznovan. V zvezi s tem je Sodišče poudarilo obveznost sodišča in predsednik senata, naj bo sojenje na tak način, da se zagotovi ustrezno ravnanje strank in predvsem pošteno sojenje in ni treba gledati v nadaljnjih sodnih obravnavah relevantna izkazi strani procesa, izraženo v sodni dvorani.

 


SKLEP

 


V primeru, da je prišlo do kršitve zahtev člena 10 Konvencije (sprejeta s šestimi glasovi za "na eni strani - proti").

 


NADOMESTILO

 


V 41. členu konvencije, Sodišče vlagatelja 2400 in 800 evrov odškodnine za moralno škodo in škodo, oz oddano.

 

 

 

Vir izdaje: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/810-ceferin-proti-sloveniji .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 16 January 2018 in the case "Ceferin (Ceferin) v. Slovenia" (application No. 40975/08).

 

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

 

The applicant's complaint that the fines applied to the applicant for contempt of court was successfully interfered with his right to freedom of expression. The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The applicant acted as an advocate for the defense in the criminal proceedings. He was fined for contempt of court in two separate trials, which was expressed in the criticism of expert witnesses and the prosecutor as part of the lawyer's oral and written observations. During the conventional proceedings, the applicant complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Compliance with Article 13 of the Convention. The fines applied to the applicant for contempt of court were interference with his right to freedom of expression, which was provided by law (part one of Article 78 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining the authority of the judiciary and protecting the reputation and rights of trial participants.

 

As to whether the interference with the applicant's right was necessary in a democratic society, the Court held that the domestic courts did not submit appropriate and sufficient reasons to justify the restriction of the applicant's right to freedom of expression and therefore were not achieved on the basis of the criterion established in case-law Of the European Court of Justice, an equitable balance between, on the one hand, the need to protect the powers of the judiciary and the need to protect the applicant's right to expression eniya, on the other hand.

 

In formulating this conclusion, the Court takes into account the following factors.

 

(a) The applicant made contested statements in the context of a trial in which he acted as the lawyer of a person accused of committing three murders. Thus, his remarks were made during the discussion, where the rights of his client, of course, needed to be protected by all means. Moreover, the applicant's statements were made only in the courtroom, in contrast to the criticism of the judge, for example, voiced in the media. In both procedures for charging contempt of court, the domestic courts did not consider the context and form in which the applicant's comments were made.

 

(b) Apparently, the domestic courts did not provide more protection to the appealed statements aimed at the actions of the prosecutor. Nonetheless, the rule that the limits of acceptable criticism may in some cases be broader in relation to public civil servants than for private persons, a fortiori, has been applied to criticism by the prosecutor to the accused. Similarly, taking into account the fact that they acted in their official capacity, and considering the potential impact of their opinions on the outcome of the criminal trial, the expert witnesses should have been tolerant of criticizing their performance of their duties.

 

(c) The impugned statements can not be construed as causeless personal attacks or regarded as pursuing the sole purpose of offending an expert, prosecutor or court. They also can not be considered a propri unreasonable. In particular, they were based on the facts put forward by the applicant in order to undermine the credibility of experts and prevent the disclosure of research results on the lie detector. Whether these facts were sufficient to substantiate the statements complained of - this particular issue should have been properly considered by the domestic courts.

 

(d) Most of the complaints complained of were made verbally, but nothing indicated that the sitting judges reacted to criticism. Moreover, it is striking that the applicant was not given any opportunity to explain his actions or protect himself before he was fined. In this connection, the Court emphasized the duty of the courts and the presiding judge to prosecute in such a way as to ensure the proper conduct of the parties and, above all, the fairness of the trial, and not to consider in subsequent court hearings the appropriateness of the statements of the party to the trial expressed in the courtroom.

 


DECISION

 


In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (adopted by six votes "for" at one - "against").

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,400 and 800 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and pecuniary damage, respectively.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/811-ceferin-v-slovenia .