Новости от 09 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
In the case, the applicant successfully complained that the trial against him on charges of a criminal case was not fair, since prior to the decision of the verdict the prosecutor and the investigator gave interviews that violated the presumption of innocence. The case involved violations of paragraphs 1, 2 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 preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant, the former head of the internal security service of Yukos, complained that the trial against him on charges of a criminal case was not fair, since prior to the decision of the verdict the prosecutor and the investigator gave interviews that violated the presumption of innocence. The applicant also challenged the refusal to conduct a new handwriting examination in the presence of opposing opinions of a specialist and an expert.
On 6 June 2017, on the application lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 and 6 (d) of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7 800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 06 June 2017 in the case of Pichugin v. The Russian Federation (аpplication no. 38958/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/840-pichugin-c-russia .
In the case, the complaint on the failure to provide proper medical assistance to the applicant, the applicant's lack of an effective remedy was successfully considered. The case involved violation of the requirements of articles 3 and 13 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, who was serving a sentence, complained that he had not been provided with proper medical care, since no proper treatment for diseases associated with a significant deterioration of his sight was subsequently carried out, which was subsequently confirmed by a diagnosis of "cataracts in both eyes" and caused the need for an operation. 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.
ECHR judgment of 06 June 2017 in the case of Balkov v. The Russian Federation (аpplication no. 33690/12).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/841-balkov-c-russia .
In the case, the complaint on the excessive length of the applicant's detention pending trial was successfully considered. There has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 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 applicant, who is a Tajik national, complained about the excessive length of his detention pending trial.
On 06 June 2017, on the application lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 2,400 euros compensation for non-pecuniary damage, property damage and court expenses.
Decision of the ECHR of June 06, 2017 in the case of "Yugay (Yugay) v. Russian Federation" (аpplication No. 29769/09).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/842-yugay-c-russia .
The case successfully examined a complaint about the unlawful detention and conviction of the applicants, the violation of their right to respect for family life as a result of the searches in their apartment and the establishment of restrictions on the number of visits to one of the applicants held in custody. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 5, paragraph 1 of Article 6, Article 8 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 their complaint, the applicants in the case are a husband and wife who worked as journalists in the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika. The applicant complained that his detention and conviction was unlawful, since the court was not independent and established by law, his conviction was also illegal because of the refusal to admit the lawyer to the trial. The applicants also complained that searches in their apartment and restrictions on the number of visits of the applicant detained were in violation of the right to respect for their family life.
On 30 May 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court decided, by six votes in favor and one against, that in this case the authorities of the Republic of Moldova did not violate any provisions of the Convention, and the Government violated the requirements of article 5, paragraph 1 (Right to liberty and security of person), article 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a fair trial), article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life), and obliged the Government to pay 30,000 euros to the applicant and 7,000 euros claiming as a compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation) expressed a special dissenting opinion on this case.
The ECHR judgment of 30 May 2017 in the case of Vardanean against the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation (аpplication No. 22200/10).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/843-vardanean-c-republic-of-moldova-and-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the applicant's unlawful deprivation of liberty, his detention in inhuman conditions, his failure to provide medical assistance, and unfair trial. The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 3, paragraph 1 of Article 5, paragraph 1 of Article 6 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 complained that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty by the authorities of the Moldavian Transdniestrian Republic in 2005, was detained in inhuman conditions and that he was not provided with medical care, and the trial against him was not fair.
On 30 May 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the European Court held by six votes in favor, one against, that in this case the authorities of the Republic of Moldova did not violate any provisions of the Convention, and the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention prohibition of torture), article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention (right to liberty and security of the person), article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention (right to a fair trial), and obliged the Russian authorities to pay the applicant 40,000 euros in compensation for moral damage Yes.
Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation) expressed a special dissenting opinion on this case.
ECHR Ordinance of 30 May 2017 in the case of Apkov v. Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation (аpplication No. 13463/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/844-apcov-c-republic-of-moldova-and-russia .
Решение на Европейския съд по правата на човека от 07 декември 2017 г. по делото С. Ф. и други срещу България (жалба № 8138/16).
През 2012 г. жалбоподателите бяха подпомогнати при подготовката на жалбата. Впоследствие жалбата е съобщена в България.
В случая се разглежда успешно оплакването за нечовешко и унизително отношение на кандидатите, които са непълнолетни имигранти, докато са били държани в граничния полицейски изолатор. Настъпи нарушение на член 3 от Конвенцията за защита на правата на човека и основните свободи.
ОБСТОЯТЕЛСТВА ПО ДЕЛОТО
Кандидатите, три непълнолетни лица, иракски гражданин, който е избягал от страната с родителите си, са били задържани при Българската-сръбската гранична полиция и в затвора (и техните родители) в центъра за задържане на Гранична полиция във Видин (България). По-късно те са били прехвърлени в център за задържане на имигранти в София, а по-късно те са получили убежище в Швейцария.
В Съда жалбоподателите твърдят, че условията на тяхното задържане в град Видин представляват нечовешко и унизително отношение, което противоречи на член 3 от Конвенцията.
ПРОБЛЕМИ НА ЗАКОНА
По отношение на спазването на член 3 от Конвенцията. Имиграционното задържане на непълнолетни е от особена важност, тъй като децата, независимо дали са придружени от възрастни или не, са изключително уязвима група със специални нужди.
Въпросният период трае от 32 до 41 часа. Този период е значително по-кратък от периодите, в наскоро прегледани от случаите Европейския съд, в което Съдът разгледани условията, при които малолетни лица без придружител задържани в имиграционното задържане. Условията в изолатора на граничната полиция обаче са значително по-лоши от описаните в тези случаи. Клетката, в която се намират кандидатите, макар и относително добре вентилирана и осветена, е в изключително разорение. Беше мръсно, имаше износени легла, матраци и легла, боклук и суров картон лежаха на пода. Достъпът до тоалетната беше ограничен, което ги принуди да уринират на пода в килията, в която са били държани. Властите се твърди, че не са успели да им осигури храна и напитки за повече от 24 часа след задържането, както и органите на държавата-ответник не оспорват твърдението, че майката на ищците получи бутилка с вода за деца и мляко за по-младото жалбоподателят, който е само на осемнайсетмесец , приблизително 19 часа след задържането.
Комбинацията от посочените по-горе фактори би трябвало значително да засегне физическото и психологическото развитие на кандидатите и да има особено вредни последици за младия кандидат с оглед на неговата много малка възраст. Макар да е вярно в последните години от държавата, разположени на външните граници на Европейския съюз, се борят да се справят с притока на имигранти, човек не може да се каже, че в периода, свързани с обстоятелствата по делото, българските власти са изправени пред извънредна ситуация от такъв мащаб, че властите са били лишени от практически възможности за предоставяне на минимални достойни условия в институциите за временно задържане, в които решиха да поставят нелегални мигранти веднага след арестуването и арестуването им. Във всеки случай, от гледна точка на абсолютната природа на член 3 от Конвенцията увеличаване на притока на мигранти не може да се освободи от високодоговарящите страни от спазването на разпоредбите на Конвенцията.
РЕШЕНИЕ
Нарушението на изискванията на член 3 от Конвенцията (единодушно) е извършено по делото.
КОМПЕНСАЦИЯ
При прилагането на член 41 от Конвенцията. Съдът присъди на всеки жалбоподател 600 евро за неимуществени вреди.
Източник на публикация: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/834-s-f-i-drugi-sreshtu-bulgariya .
ECHR judgment of 07 December 2017 in the case of S.F. and Others v. Bulgaria (application No. 8138/16).
In 2012, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated in Bulgaria.
In the case, the complaint on inhuman and degrading treatment of applicants who are underage immigrants, while they were held in the border police isolator, was successfully considered. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants, three minor Iraqi nationals who fled the country together with their parents, were detained by police officers on the Bulgarian-Serbian border and imprisoned (like their parents) in the border police isolator in Vidin (Bulgaria). Later they were transferred to an immigration detention center in Sofia, and later they were granted asylum in Switzerland.
In the Court, the applicants submitted that the conditions of their detention in the city of Vidin constituted inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 3 of the Convention. Immigration detention of minors is of particular concern, since children, whether accompanied by adults or not, are an extremely vulnerable group with special needs.
The period in question lasted from 32 to 41 hours. This period was significantly shorter than the periods in the cases recently examined by the European Court in which the European Court examined the conditions under which adult accompanied minors were detained in immigration detention. However, the conditions in the border police isolator were significantly worse than those described in these cases. The cell in which the applicants were held, although relatively well ventilated and illuminated, was in extremely dilapidated condition. It was dirty, there were worn bunk bunks, mattresses and bedding, garbage and raw cardboard lay on the floor. The access to the toilet was limited, which forced them to urinate on the floor in the cell in which they were kept. The authorities allegedly did not provide them with food or drink for more than 24 hours after being taken into custody and the Government did not dispute the claim that the applicants' mother had received a bottle of water for children and milk for the younger applicant who was only a year and a half , approximately 19 hours after being taken into custody.
The combination of the above-mentioned factors should have significantly affected the applicants physically and psychologically and had particularly detrimental consequences for the younger applicant in view of his very young age. While it is true that in recent years, states located on the external borders of the European Union are struggling to cope with the large flow of migrants, it can not be argued that, during the period relevant to the circumstances, the Bulgarian authorities faced an emergency situation on such a scale that the authorities were deprived of the practical opportunity to provide minimum worthy conditions in institutions of temporary detention, in which they decided to place under-age migrants immediately after their arrest and arrest. In any event, in view of the absolute nature of Article 3 of the Convention, the increasing influx of migrants can not absolve the High Contracting Party from compliance with this provision of the Convention.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded each applicant EUR 600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/835-s-f-and-others-v-bulgaria .
Decreto ECHR del 7 dicembre 2017 nel caso di Arnoldi c. Italia (ricorso n. 35637/04).
Nel 2004, il richiedente è stato assistito nella preparazione della ricorso. La ricorso è stata successivamente comunicata in Italia.
Il caso ha esaminato con successo il reclamo del richiedente circa la lunghezza eccessiva del procedimento penale, per impedirle di entrare nel procedimento penale come attore civile a causa della durata delle indagini preliminari. C'è stata una violazione dell'articolo 6 della Convenzione per la protezione dei diritti umani e delle libertà fondamentali.
CIRCOSTANZE DEL CASO
Nel 1995 la ricorrente ha presentato una denuncia penale sul fatto di falso (a causa della testimonianza resa in relazione con i suoi sforzi per impedire la costruzione illegale sul territorio del suo patrimonio). Dopo un'indagine preliminare, durato sette anni, i procedimenti sono stati sospesi sulla base della prescrizione per la prosecuzione di questo crimine. Il richiedente ha presentato una denuncia ai sensi della legge Pinto, lamentando la lunghezza eccessiva del procedimento penale. Il suo ricorso è stato dichiarato inammissibile nel merito per il fatto che lei non ha avuto lo status di parte civile in un procedimento avviato su sua richiesta, e che sarebbe difendere i loro diritti nei tribunali in materia civile, senza attendere il completamento delle indagini preliminari.
Secondo la legge italiana, la vittima non può entrare nella causa come attore civile prima dell'udienza preliminare. Nel caso di specie non si è tenuta nessuna udienza preliminare al momento del riconoscimento della scadenza della prescrizione per il reato.
QUESTIONI DI LEGGE
Riguardo all'osservanza dell'articolo 6, paragrafo 1, della Convenzione. (a) Applicabilità delle disposizioni della Convenzione. aspetto di diritto civile dell'articolo 6 § 1 della Convenzione è stato riconosciuto come applicabile nel caso di specie per le seguenti ragioni legate, in particolare, con le caratteristiche specifiche del sistema legale in Italia.
(i) L'esistenza della legge civile dalla parte lesa. Due criteri stabiliti dalla giurisprudenza della Corte europea sono alternativi, non cumulativi. Per la persona interessata è necessario e sufficiente per agire al fine di ottenere "compensazione", anche se solo simbolico, o con lo scopo di "diritti civili", con atto di partecipare al procedimento come parte civile o semplicemente avviando un querela. Di conseguenza, il fatto che il requisito della compensazione formale non sia stato sollevato non preclude l'applicabilità dell'articolo 6 della Convenzione. In ciascun caso, è necessario considerare se l'ordinamento giuridico nazionale abbia riconosciuto che la persona che ha presentato il reclamo ha un interesse civile a difendersi in un procedimento penale.
Nel caso di specie, non era contestato che entrambi questi criteri fossero soddisfatti. In primo luogo, la presentazione di una richiesta di aprire un procedimento penale, e come di seguito al punto (ii), il richiedente ha dimostrato il suo interesse ad ottenere un risarcimento per la violazione dei diritti civili su cui si poteva contare per motivi discutibili. In secondo luogo, il caso riguardava i lavori della contraffazione, in cui la ricorrente ha chiesto il riconoscimento di carattere inaffidabile della testimonianza resa da terzi in base ai quali le autorità dello Stato convenuto ha respinto la sua domanda per la protezione dei diritti di proprietà.
(ii) La natura decisiva della fase preliminare del processo per la protezione dei diritti civili delle vittime. Questo problema non può essere considerato in modo astratto, dal momento che è necessario tener conto delle peculiarità del sistema giuridico interno e delle circostanze specifiche del caso.
In conformità con il codice di procedura penale l'Italia è vittima di una serie di diritti, compreso il diritto di condurre le indagini in modo indipendente della procura partito in corso e la difesa, e il diritto di impugnare la decisione di cessare la produzione. Inoltre, il sistema legale italiano è regolato dal principio della "legalità dell'accusa". Ciò significa che, se le autorità nazionali hanno notificato sulle azioni che potrebbero costituire un reato (ad esempio, sulla domanda), sono tenuti se ci sono motivi per perseguire i colpevoli. Di conseguenza, presentando una domanda, le vittime hanno il diritto di aspettarsi nei casi previsti dalla legge, che viene avviato un procedimento in cui potrebbero venire come parti civili per ottenere il risarcimento dei danni.
Rispettivamente, secondo la legge italiana sulla posizione della vittima, che è attesa per l'opportunità di partecipare al procedimento come parte civile, porta almeno uno di questi diritti e opportunità nel procedimento penale non sono significativamente diversi dalla qualità di parte civile. Pertanto, l'esito del procedimento preliminare è stato decisivo per questa causa civile.
Nel caso di specie, la ricorrente ha effettuato almeno uno dei diritti e delle opportunità offerte alle vittime in conformità con la legislazione nazionale, dal momento che ha presentato i documenti direttamente chiesto che esso ha notificato alla chiusura del procedimento, e ripetutamente richiesto dal pubblico ministero di agire e la rapida conclusione del procedimento.
(iii) Obiezione sull'esistenza di altri rimedi in grado di proteggere gli interessi civili del richiedente. Il fatto che al ricorrente siano stati concessi altri mezzi di protezione (vale a dire, l'accesso ai tribunali civili) per dimostrare che le prove erano false era una circostanza che la Corte stava per valutare nel valutare la proporzionalità delle restrizioni all'accesso a un tribunale e non era nel contesto dell'applicabilità dell'articolo 6 della Convenzione.
Se l'ordinamento giuridico interno fornisce un rimedio volto a proteggere la legge civile, lo Stato deve garantire che i partecipanti al procedimento godano delle garanzie fondamentali dell'articolo 6 della Convenzione, anche se le norme interne consentono una diversa modalità di protezione.
Inoltre, poiché la ricorrente non aveva adottato misure al di fuori dell'ambito del procedimento penale per garantire la tutela dei suoi diritti civili, non si può ritenere che abbia rinunciato ai suoi diritti ai sensi dell'articolo 6 della Convenzione.
DECISIONE
L'articolo 6 della Convenzione è applicabile alla causa (adottata all'unanimità).
(b) Meriti. Data la natura del procedimento penale in Italia l'inizio del periodo da prendere in considerazione è la data di deposito della denuncia della ricorrente (ottobre 1995), e il momento del suo completamento - la decisione del giudice di chiudere la procedura (nel gennaio 2003). Questo periodo di oltre sette anni di appena un'indagine preliminare è eccessivo.
DECISIONE
La violazione dei requisiti di cui all'articolo 6 della Convenzione (all'unanimità) è stata commessa.
COMPENSAZIONE
Nell'applicazione dell'articolo 41 della Convenzione. La Corte ha assegnato al richiedente EUR 4,500 in relazione al danno non-patrimoniale, la richiesta di risarcimento per danno patrimoniale è stata respinta.
Fonte di pubblicazione: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/836-arnoldi-c-italia .
ECHR Decree of 07 December 2017 in the case of Arnoldi v. Italy (application No. 35637/04).
In 2004, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. The application was subsequently communicated in Italy.
The case successfully examined the applicant's complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings, to prevent her from entering the criminal proceedings as a civil plaintiff due to the length of preliminary investigations. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
In 1995, the applicant filed an application for the initiation of a criminal investigation into a fraud (because of testimonies given in connection with her attempts to prevent the illegal construction of her property). After a preliminary investigation, which lasted seven years, the proceedings were terminated on the basis of the expiration of the statute of limitations for the prosecution of this crime. The applicant lodged a complaint under the Pinto Act, complaining about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. Her complaint was declared inadmissible for consideration on the merits on the grounds that she did not have the status of a civil plaintiff in the proceedings instituted on her application and that she could assert her rights before the civil courts without waiting for the conclusion of the preliminary investigation.
Under Italian law, the victim can not enter the case as a civil plaintiff before the preliminary hearing. In the present case, no preliminary hearing was held at the time of the recognition of the expiry of the statute of limitations for the crime.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. (a) Applicability of the provisions of the Convention. The civil aspect of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention was found to be applicable in the present case for the following reasons, related in particular to the specific features of Italy's legal system.
(i) The existence of civil law from the injured party. Two criteria established in the case-law of the European Court are alternative, not cumulative. For an interested person, it is necessary and sufficient to act to obtain "compensation", even if only symbolic, or for the purpose of "protecting civil law", by filing an application to join the proceedings as a civil plaintiff or simply by instituting private prosecution. Consequently, the fact that the requirement of formal compensation was not raised does not preclude the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention. In each case, it is necessary to consider whether the domestic legal system has recognized that the person who lodged the complaint has a civil interest to defend in criminal proceedings.
In the present case, it was not disputed that both these criteria were met. Firstly, by filing an application for a criminal investigation and, as detailed below in paragraph (ii), the applicant demonstrated her interest in obtaining compensation for a violation of civil law, to which she could rely on provable grounds. Secondly, the case concerned the forgery proceedings, in which the applicant sought recognition of the inauthentic character of the statements given by third parties on the basis of which the respondent Government had rejected her application for the protection of property rights.
(ii) The decisive nature of the preliminary trial stage for the protection of the civil rights of victims. This issue can not be considered abstractly, since it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of the domestic legal system and the specific circumstances of the case.
In accordance with the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim has a number of rights, including the right to conduct investigations independently of the parties to prosecution and defense, as well as the right to appeal against the decision to terminate the proceedings. In addition, the legal system of Italy is governed by the principle of "the legality of prosecution." This means that if domestic authorities are notified of actions that can constitute a crime (for example, upon application), they are obliged, if there are grounds to prosecute the perpetrators. Accordingly, by submitting the application, the victims have the right to expect, in cases provided for by law, that proceedings will be instituted in which they could enter as civil plaintiffs to receive compensation for the damage caused.
Accordingly, under Italian law, the situation of the victim, who, while awaiting the opportunity to enter the proceedings as a civil party, has exercised at least one of these rights and opportunities in criminal proceedings, did not differ significantly from that of the civil plaintiff. Thus, the outcome of the preliminary proceedings was decisive for this civil case.
In the present case, the applicant carried out at least one of the rights and opportunities granted to victims in accordance with domestic law, since she submitted the documents, directly demanded that she be notified of the termination of the proceedings, and repeatedly demanded that the party prosecute the taking of actions and the prompt conclusion of the proceedings.
(iii) Objection to the existence of other remedies capable of protecting the applicant's civil interests. The fact that the applicant was afforded other means of protection (namely, access to civil courts) to establish that the evidence was false was a circumstance that the Court was about to consider in assessing the proportionality of restrictions on access to a court and was not in the context of the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention.
If the domestic legal system provides a remedy aimed at protecting civil law, the State must ensure that the participants in the proceedings enjoy the fundamental guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention, even if domestic rules allow for a different way of protection.
Moreover, since the applicant had not taken measures outside the scope of criminal proceedings to ensure the protection of her civil rights, she could not be considered to have waived her rights under Article 6 of the Convention.
DECISION
Article 6 of the Convention is applicable to the case (unanimously adopted).
(b) Merits. In view of the specifics of the criminal process in Italy, the beginning of the period of time that must be taken into account is the date of filing the complaint by the applicant (October 1995), and the moment of its termination is the judge's decision to terminate the proceedings (January 2003). This more than seven-year period of just a preliminary investigation is excessive.
DECISION
The violation of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage was rejected.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/837-arnoldi-v-italy .
Odluka ESLJP od 5. decembra 2017. godine u predmetu Hamidović protiv Bosne i Hercegovine (predstavka broj 57792/15).
U toku 2015. godine podnosiocu predstavke je pružena pomoć u pripremi predstavkai. Nakon toga, predstavke je dostavljena Bosni i Hercegovini.
Slučaj je uspešno razmotrio žalbu zbog izricanja novčane kazne od strane suda podnosiocu predstavke, koji je odbio da ukloni tradicionalni vjerski pokrivač prilikom davanja dokaza na sudu kao svjedoka u krivičnom slučaju. U slučaju da je došlo do povrede zahtjeva iz člana 9 Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda.
OKOLNOSTI SLUČAJA
Podnosilac prijave, koji je bio član lokalne grupe, ispovijedaju vehabijsko / salafista verziju islama, bio je pozvan da svjedoči u krivičnom postupku ostalih članova grupe, koji su optuženi za zločine povezane sa terorizmom. On je uredno pojavio na poziv suda, ali je odbio da se tradicionalne vjerske frizura u svom svjedočenju, tvrdeći da je njegova religija zahtijeva nosi ovaj šešir cijelo vrijeme. Nakon što mu je dao vremena za razmišljanje i upozorio na posljedice nastavka zahtjeva neusklađenosti ukloniti frizura, on je proglašen krivim za nepoštivanje suda, a on je imenovan kao kazna, koja je kasnije pretvorena u 30 dana u zatvoru, kada je odbio da plati.
PITANJA ZAKONA
Što se tiče usaglašavanja sa članom 9 Konvencije. Kazna koja se podnosiocu prijave odnosila na nosioca glavnog mesta u sudnici bila je ograni ~ enje priznanja njegove vjeroispovjesti. Ograničenje je baziran na inherentne sudija osnaživanje za upravljanje napredak postupka u Vrhovnom sudu, podnosilac bio obaviješten o važećim pravilima i posljedice neposlušnosti. Ograničenje se težilo legitimnom cilju, kako je Sud prethodno istakao (vidi. Odluka Velikog vijeća Europskog suda u predmetu "Lautsi i drugi protiv Italije" (Lautsi i drugi protiv. Italija) 18. marta 2011. godine, žalba N 30814/06. Vidi. Bilten Evropskog suda za ljudska prava 2011. N 9) koji sekularizam je uvjerenje zaštićeno članom 9. Konvencije, kao i da je svrha održavanja sekularne i demokratske vrijednosti mogu se povezati sa legitimnom cilju "zaštite prava i sloboda drugih.". S obzirom na potrebu da se ograniči u demokratskom društvu, Sud je svjestan da pred predsedavajući sudija je bio težak zadatak da održava red i osigurati objektivnost postupka u ovom predmetu, u kojem je broj učesnika je pripadao grupi koja se protivi koncept sekularne države, i priznaje samo Božji zakon i sud . Takođe uzima u obzir opšti kontekst suđenja. Ipak, Sud smatra da primijenjena mjera nije opravdana.
Konkretnom slučaju svjedok podnosioca predstavke u krivičnom predmetu, i to je sasvim druga stvar koja se mora razlikovati od slučajeva koji uključuju nošenje vjerskih simbola i odjeće na radnom mjestu, a posebno javnih službenika vršenju ovlaštenja. Budući da je člankom 9. Konvencije ne štiti svaki čin motivisan ili inspirisan vjeru ili uvjerenje i ne mora uvijek ne garantira pravo da se ponašaju u javnoj sferi znači diktira religije ili osoba uvjerenja, iako postoje slučajevi kada je potražnja za svjedoka da ukloni vjerski simbol opravdano, vlasti se pozivaju da ne zaborave specifične karakteristike različitih religija. Sloboda vjere je osnovno pravo, ne samo zato što samo zdravo demokratsko društvo zahtijeva očuvanje i održavanje pluralizma i raznovrsnosti, ali i zbog značaja za lice za koje je religija osnovno pravilo života, da bi mogli komunicirati njegove osude drugima.
Sud ne vidi razloga da sumnja da su akcije podnosioca bile opravdane iskreno vjerskih uvjerenja da je njegova verska obaveza je stalna nošenja vjerskih ruhu, u odsustvu skrivenih namjera ismijati suđenja, podstiče druge da uskraćivanja sekularne i demokratske vrijednosti ili izazvati nemire . Za razliku od nekih drugih članova njegove vjerske grupe, podnosilac je na poziv suda i stao na zahtjev, tako da je jasno u skladu sa zakonima i sudovima u zemlji. Nije bilo dokaza da on nije želeo da svedoči ili se ponašao nepoštivo. U takvim okolnostima, njegova kazna za nepoštovanje suda na osnovu toga je odbio da skine šešir, nije bilo neophodno u demokratskom društvu i vlasti tužene države otišla izvan granica svoje široke diskrecije.
ODLUKA
U slučaju da je došlo do povrede zahteva člana 9 Konvencije (usvojeno sa šest glasova za "na jedan -" protiv ").
KOMPENZACIJA
Prilikom primene člana 41 Konvencije. Sud je podnosiocu prijave dodijelio EUR 4.500 za nematerijalnu štetu.
Izvor publikacije: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/838-hamidovic-protiv-bosne-i-hercegovine .
Decision of the ECHR of December 5, 2017 in the case of Hamidovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 57792/15).
In 2015, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the appointment of a fine by the court to the applicant, who refused to remove the traditional religious headgear while giving evidence in court as a witness in the criminal case. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant, who was a member of a local group that professed the Wahhabi / Salafite version of Islam, was summoned to testify in the criminal proceedings in the case of other members of the group who were accused of crimes of a terrorist nature. He properly appeared at the summons to the court, but refused to remove the traditional religious headgear while giving evidence, arguing that his religion obliged to wear this hat permanently. After being given time for reflection and warning about the consequences of continuing disobeying the requirement to remove the hat, he was found guilty of contempt of court, and he was fined, which was later converted to 30 days of imprisonment when he refused to pay him.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with article 9 of the Convention. The punishment applied to the applicant for wearing a headdress in the courtroom was the restriction of the confession of his religion. The restriction was based on the inherent power of the judge to direct the proceedings before the State Court, and the applicant was notified of the applicable rule and the consequences of disobedience. The restriction also pursued a legitimate aim, as the Court had previously pointed out (see Lautsi and Others v. Italy, judgment of 18 March 2011, no. 30814/06. : Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights 2011. N 9) that secularism is a conviction protected by Article 9 of the Convention and that the goal of maintaining secular and democratic values can be related to the legitimate aim of "protecting the rights and freedoms of others." With regard to the need for restraint in a democratic society, the Court is aware that the presiding judge was faced with the difficult task of maintaining order and ensuring the objectivity of this trial in a case in which a number of participants belonged to a group opposed to the concept of a secular state and recognizing only the law of God and the court . It also takes into account the general context of the trial. Nevertheless, the Court considers that the measure applied was not justified.
The applicant's case concerned a witness in a criminal case, and this is a completely different matter that should be distinguished from cases involving the wearing of religious symbols and clothing in the workplace, especially public officials exercising official authority. While Article 9 of the Convention does not protect every act motivated or inspired by religion or belief, and does not always guarantee the right to behave in the public sphere in the manner dictated by a person's religion or beliefs, and although there are cases when the requirement for a witness to remove a religious symbol is justified, the authorities are invited not to lose sight of the specific characteristics of different religions. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right not only because only a healthy democratic society needs to preserve and maintain pluralism and diversity, but also because of the importance for a person for whom religion is the basic rule of one's life, to be able to communicate one's belief to others.
The Court sees no reason to doubt that the applicant's actions were justified by his sincere religious conviction that his religious duty is the constant wearing of religious clothing, in the absence of a latent intention to ridicule the trial, incite others to deny secular and democratic values or cause riots . Unlike some other members of his religious group, the applicant appeared on a summons to the court and stood up on demand, thereby clearly obeying the law and the courts of the country. There was no evidence that he did not want to testify or behaved disrespectfully. In such circumstances, his punishment for contempt of court on the sole ground that he refused to remove the hat was not necessary in a democratic society, and the authorities of the respondent state went beyond the broad limits of their discretion.
DECISION
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 9 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 EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/839-hamidovic-v-bosnia-and-herzegovina .