Новости от 15 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Постанова ЄСПЛ від 08 грудня 2016 року по справі "Чернецький проти України (Chernetskiy v. Ukraine)" (заява N 44316/07).
У 2007 році заявнику була надана допомога в підготовці заяви. Згодом заява була комунікувати Україні.
У справі успішно розглянута скарга на невиправдані затримки у видачі укладеним свідоцтва про розірвання шлюбу, необхідного для вступу в повторний шлюб. У справі допущено порушення вимог статті 12 Конвенції.
Обставини справи
Заявник скаржився до Європейського Суду відповідно до статті 12 Конвенції на те, що в 2005 - 2008 роках йому перешкоджали у вступі в повторний шлюб, оскільки він відбував 15-річний термін позбавлення волі і не мав дозволу на відвідування органу реєстрації актів цивільного стану для отримання свідоцтва про розлучення після розірвання свого колишнього шлюбу. Після прийняття нового законодавства заявник отримав свідоцтво про розірвання шлюбу в тюрмі в лютому 2009 року.
Питання права
З приводу дотримання статті 12 Конвенції. Європейський Суд нагадав, що особиста свобода не є необхідною передумовою для здійснення права на вступ у шлюб. Той факт, що позбавлення волі позбавляє особу його волі, а також неминуче або за замовчуванням деяких цивільних прав і привілеїв, не означає, що особи, які тримаються під вартою, не можуть або можуть тільки як виняток здійснювати їх права на вступ у шлюб. Крім того, хоча право на розлучення не може бути виведено зі статті 12 Конвенції, якщо внутрішньодержавне законодавство допускає розлучення, воно забезпечує розведеним особам право на вступ до повторний шлюб за відсутності нерозумних обмежень.
Заявник не міг одружитися на новій партнерці з лютого 2005 року по жовтень 2008 року, оскільки органи влади не могли закінчити реєстрацію розлучення і представити йому відповідне свідоцтво про розірвання шлюбу в тюрмі. Це обмеження права заявника на повторний шлюб було значно тривалішим, досягнувши понад три роки і сім місяців. Воно додатково ускладнювалося тим фактом, що до реєстрації нового шлюбу заявник не мав права на тривалі приватні побачення, а тільки на короткі (чотиригодинні) побачення в присутності наглядача. При таких обставинах обмеження було невиправданим і зменшувало саму сутність права заявника на вступ в шлюб і створення сім'ї.
Постанова
У справі допущено порушення вимог статті 12 Конвенції (прийнято одноголосно).
Компенсація
В порядку застосування статті 41 Конвенції. Європейський Суд присудив виплатити заявникові 3 000 євро в якості компенсації моральної шкоди.
Дивись також рішення у справі "Яремович проти Польщі" (Jaremowicz v. Poland) від 5 січня 2010 року, скарга N 24023/03, і рішення у справі "Фрасік проти Польщі" (Frasik v. Poland) від 5 січня 2010 року, заява N 22933/02.
Джерело публікації: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/853-chernetskyy-proty-ukrayiny .
Decision of the ECHR of December 8, 2016 on the case "Chernetsky against Ukraine (Chernetskiy v. Ukraine)" (application No. 44316/07).
In 2007, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Ukraine.
In the case, a complaint was successfully considered for unjustified delays in issuing to the prisoner a certificate of divorce required for remarriage. There has been a violation of Article 12 of the Convention.
The circumstances of the case
The applicant complained to the Court in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention that in 2005-2008 he was prevented from remarriage because he served a 15-year prison term and did not have permission to visit the civil registry office to obtain certificates of divorce after the dissolution of their previous marriage. After the adoption of the new legislation, the applicant received a certificate of divorce in prison in February 2009.
Law issues
Concerning compliance with Article 12 of the Convention. The Court recalls that personal freedom is not a prerequisite for the exercise of the right to marry. The fact that deprivation of liberty deprives a person of his liberty, and also inevitably or by default some of the civil rights and privileges, does not mean that persons held in custody can not or can only exercise their right to marry only by way of exception. Furthermore, although the right to divorce can not be deduced from Article 12 of the Convention, if domestic law allows for divorce, it secures to divorced persons the right to remarry in the absence of unreasonable restrictions.
The applicant could not marry a new partner from February 2005 to October 2008, as the authorities could not finish the registration of the divorce and present him with a relevant certificate of divorce in prison. This restriction of the applicant's right to remarriage was significantly prolonged, reaching more than three years and seven months. It was further aggravated by the fact that before the registration of a new marriage, the applicant had no right to long private visits, but only to short (four-hour) meetings in the presence of the supervisor. Under such circumstances, the restriction was unjustified and detracted from the very essence of the applicant's right to marry and found a family.
Resolution
The violation of the requirements of Article 12 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed.
Compensation
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant.
See also the Jaremowicz v. Poland judgment of 5 January 2010, complaint No. 24023/03, and the Frasik v. Poland judgment of 5 January 2010, complaint No. 22933/02.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/854-chernetskiy-v-ukraine .
Dokmeci - Türkiye davasında 06 Aralık 2016 tarihli AİHM Kararı (şikâyet 74155/14).
2014 yılında başvurucu şikâyetin hazırlanmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Daha sonra şikayet Türkiye'ye bildirildi.
Durumda, geçici miktarın ödenmesinden sonra mal sahibinin mülkiyet hakkından mahrum bırakılmasına rağmen, kamulaştırma tazminatının nihai ödenmesi için faiz ödenmemesi üzerine bir şikayet başarılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Dava, İnsan Hakları ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunması Sözleşmesi'nin 1 No'lu Protokolünün 1. maddesinin şartlarının ihlal edildiğini içeriyordu.
OLAYIN DURUMU
Dekmedzhi tarım arazisinin sahibidir. 2006 yılında baraj ve hidroelektrik santralinin planlanan inşaatı bir kamu yararı projesi ilan edildi. 2009 yılında, projenin etkilenen arazi istimlak sahibinin yokluğunda çıkış denetimden sonra geçici tazminat atanmasını sağlayan acil kamulaştırma prosedürleri (kamulaştırma N 2942 tarihinde Kanununun 27. Maddesi) konusu olacak karar verildi. İlgili makam, bu şekilde belirlenen miktarı derhal ödedi ve kendi toprak hakkını elde etti. 2010 yılında, bu beden "normal" bir prosedür sahibi misafir muayene katıldı sağlar, (Kamulaştırma Kanunun 10) sonuçlara yol açabilecektir tazminat belirlenmesi için mahkemeye uygulanır.
2012 yılında, mahkeme olan geçici miktarda (% 45), kalan miktar aynı yıl ödenmiştir ve arazi mülkiyeti ilgili kuruma aktarılmış oldu biraz yarısından az, nihai ödeme miktarını ayarlayın. Başvuran, Yargıtay'a ve daha sonra Anayasa Mahkemesine başarısız bir şekilde şikayette bulunmuştur. Onun düşüncesine göre, faizi hesaplamak için kullanılan yöntem, enflasyonun seviyesini yeterince telafi etmemiştir.
HUKUK SORUNLARI
Sözleşmeye Ek 1 No'lu Protokol'ün 1. maddesiyle uyum konusunda. Mülkiyetin mahrumiyeti yasaldı. Yükün orantılılığını dikkate almaya devam etmektedir. İkinci prosedürden sonra başvurana yapılan ek miktar faiz ödemesini içermemektedir. Bu dönemde enflasyon dikkate alındığında, başvuru tarihine kadar karar verilinceye kadar mahkemeye kadar tazminatın bu kısmı, arazi değerinin yaklaşık % 14'ünü kaybetti.
Anayasa Mahkemesi gibi, Mahkeme, tazminatın ikinci kısmının amortismanının, verilen toplam miktar dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini tespit etmiştir. Acil ve olağan prosedürler esasen tek bir prosedürdü ve bir bütün olarak değerlendirilmiş olmalıydı. Böylece dikkate alınması gereken amortisman% 7,7'dir.
Anayasa Mahkemesi başvuranın kullanmak geçirmek veya düzenli prosedürünün başlamasından önce yaklaşık 11 ay boyunca tazminat kısmını yatırım olabileceğini de belirterek, bunu orantısız ve aşırı bir yük bulamamıştır.
Avrupa Mahkemesi bu sonuca katılmamıştır. Mevcut dava, Türkiye'ye karşı aynı konuda düşündüğü davaların geri kalanından ayrılmalıdır.
vakalar Gyulecha ve Armuti onun yargıları, (I) veya Budzhaka ve (16 Kasım 2010, N 25969/09 şikayet itibaren) diğer (Ocak 2011'de 18, N 44019/09 cazibesi), AİHM tazminat amortisman % 10,74'e ulaşan kamulaştırma için orantısız ve aşırı bir yük yoktu. Aynı zamanda, başvuranlar, bu süre zarfında mallarını kullanmaya devam ettiler, ki bu kısmen tazminatlarının devalüasyonu için kısmen telafi edildi. Ancak, mevcut davada, başvuran, acil prosedürün sona ermesinden araziden mahrum edilmiş ve bu nedenle, inceleme altındaki süre boyunca kullanma imkânı bulunmamıştır.
iş Arabadji üzerinde kararda ve Kurtuluş (7 Mart 2002, N 65714/01 şikayet itibaren) (li) (28 Eylül 2010 tarihinden itibaren, şikayet N 44019/09), bu amortisman mevcut durumda önemli ölçüde daha azdı (5 ve sırasıyla% 3.67). Mahkeme'nin görüşüne göre, Anayasa Mahkemesi ve davalı Devletin Hükümeti hatalı şekilde aşağıdakileri korumuştur:
(a) başvuru sahibi, normal prosedürün başlamasından yaklaşık 11 ay önce tazminatın bir kısmını kullanabilir, harcayabilir veya yatırım yapabilir. Bu argüman spekülatif ve mantıksızdı; zira başvurucu, ilk ödemenin alındığı tarihte arazisinin mülkiyetini kaybetti;
(b) Tazminatın ilk kısmı, nihai değerden sadece yüz değerinden düşülmüş ve mahkemeye sevk tarihinden itibaren revize edilmemiştir. Başvuranın ilgili faydaları, özellikle mülkünü o dönemde kullanamaması ve toprak mülkiyeti zararı sırasındaki topraklarının değerine karşılık gelen tutarın tam olarak karşılanması bakımından, asgari düzeyde idi;
(c) o dönem için kamulaştırılan mülkün değerindeki bir artış nedeniyle nihai tazminat artırılmıştır. Bu argüman spekülatif oldu, çünkü bu konuda bir kesinlik yoktu. Her halükarda, davalı Devlet, Kamulaştırma Yasası'nın 10. maddesinde öngörülen usulün uygulanmasında bir miktar gecikme pahasına yetkililerin kendileri tarafından yaratılan durumdan yararlanamamıştır.
Sonuç olarak, mahkemeye giderken tazminat bedeli ile fiili ödemedeki değeri arasındaki tutarsızlık, faizsizin açıkladığı şekilde açıklanmalıdır. Mahkeme'nin görüşüne göre, başvuran, mülkiyet haklarının korunması ve toplumun çıkarları arasında adil bir denge kurma gereğini ihlal eden orantısız ve aşırı bir yük yaşadı.
KARAR
Dava, 1 No'lu Protokol'ün 1. maddesinin (oybirliğiyle kabul edilen) gerekliliklerinin ihlal edildiğini içeriyordu.
TAZMİNAT
Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. Mahkeme, başvurana maddi tazminat olarak 11.700 Euro tazminat ödenmesine karar vermiştir;
Ayrıca, 6 Temmuz 2010 tarihli Yetis ve Diğerleri / Türkiye kararı, başvuru no 40349/05.
Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/855-dokmeci-t-rkiye-davas-nda .
ECHR Decree of 06 December 2016 in the case of Dokmeci v. Turkey (application No. 74155/14).
In 2014, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.
In the case, a complaint was successfully considered on the non-payment of interest for the final payment of compensation for expropriation, despite the deprivation of the owner of the right to own land after the payment of the temporary amount. 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.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
Dekmedzhi was the owner of agricultural land. In 2006, the planned construction of the dam and hydroelectric power station was declared a public interest project. In 2009, it was decided that the land affected by the project would be subject to an urgent expropriation procedure (Article 27 of the Expropriation Act No. 2942) allowing temporary compensation after field inspection in the absence of the expropriated owner. The relevant authority immediately paid the amount so established and acquired the right to own land. In 2010, this body appealed to the court for determining compensation, which would be a consequence of the "usual" procedure (Article 10 of the Expropriation Law), which provides for the participation of the owner in an on-site inspection.
In 2012, the court established the amount of final compensation, just under half of which was a temporary amount (45%), the rest of the amount was paid in the same year, and the ownership of the land was transferred to the relevant body. The applicant complained unsuccessfully to the Court of Cassation, and then to the Constitutional Court. In his opinion, the method used to calculate interest did not sufficiently compensate for the level of inflation.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Deprivation of property was legal. It remains to consider the proportionality of the burden. The additional amount due to the applicant after the second procedure did not include the payment of interest. Taking into account inflation in this period, from the date of application to the court until the decision was made, this part of the compensation lost approximately 14% of the land value.
Like the Constitutional Court, the Court found that the depreciation of the second part of compensation should be considered taking into account the total amount awarded. Urgent and usual procedures were essentially a single procedure, and they should have been assessed as a whole. Thus, the depreciation that should have been taken into account was 7.7%.
The Constitutional Court did not recognize this as a disproportionate and excessive burden, noting also that the applicant could use, spend or invest part of the compensation approximately 11 months before the start of the normal procedure.
The European Court disagreed with this conclusion. The present case should be distinguished from the rest of the cases, which he considered on the same subject against Turkey.
(i) In its Judgments on the cases of Gülec and Armut (on November 16, 2010, complaint No. 25969/09) or Budjak and others (on January 18, 2011, complaint No. 44019/09), the Court recognized that the depreciation of compensation For expropriation, which reached 10.74%, there was no disproportionate and excessive burden. At the same time, the applicants continued to use their property during this period, which partially, but sufficiently compensated for the devaluation of their compensation. However, in the present case the applicant was deprived of land from the end of the urgent procedure and therefore did not have the opportunity to use it during the period under review.
(ii) In the Arabadzhi Decisions (7 March 2002, complaint No. 65714/01) and Kurtulush (dated 28 September 2010, complaint No. 44019/09), this depreciation was significantly less than in the present case (5 and 3.67% respectively). In the Court's opinion, the Constitutional Court and the Government of the respondent State erroneously maintained the following:
(a) the applicant could use, spend or invest part of the compensation approximately 11 months before the commencement of the normal procedure. This argument was speculative and unreasonable, since the applicant lost possession of his land at the same time as the first payment was received;
(b) the first part of the compensation was deducted from the final amount only at face value, and not revised as of the date of referral to the court. The related benefits for the applicant were minimal, especially in view of his inability to use his property in that period and to receive the full amount corresponding to the value of his land at the time of loss of land ownership;
(c) the final compensation was increased due to an increase in the value of the expropriated property for that period. This argument was speculative, since there was no certainty in this respect. In any event, the respondent State could not take advantage of the situation created by the authorities themselves at the expense of some delay in introducing the procedure provided for in article 10 of the Expropriation Act.
Consequently, the discrepancy between the cost of compensation at the time of going to court and its value at actual payment should be considered as explained by the absence of interest. In the Court's view, the applicant suffered a disproportionate and excessive burden that violated the requirement of establishing a fair balance between the protection of property rights and the interests of society.
DECISION
The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (unanimously adopted).
COMPENSATION
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded 11,700 euros in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicant, the finding of a violation is sufficient in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
See also the Yetis and Others v. Turkey judgment of 6 July 2010, application no. 40349/05.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/856-dokmeci-v-turkey .
Decretul CEDO din 6 decembrie 2016 în cauza Ioan Pop și alții c. României (plângerea nr. 52924/09).
În 2009, reclamanții au fost asistați în pregătirea plângerii. Ulterior, plângerea a fost comunicată României.
În acest caz, o plângere a fost luată cu succes pentru evitarea organelor de stat de a se asigura că un copil minor era sub supravegherea unui adult, în timp ce părinții săi erau în custodia poliției. A fost încălcat articolul 3 al Convenției pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale.
Circumstanțele cauzei
Primii doi solicitanți sunt părinții celui de-al treilea. Ei au fost evacuati din casa lor printr-o hotărâre judecătorească pronunțată în noiembrie 2006, care este executorie 04 iulie 2007 În această zi, primul reclamant a rezistat cu fermitate evacuarea, dar fără nici un rezultat. Primul reclamant și reclamantul au fost duși la poliție, în timp ce cel de-al doilea reclamant se presupune că a rămas singur timp de câteva ore fără supravegherea adulților.
Aspecte juridice
Cu privire la respectarea articolului 3 al Convenției (aspecte de fond). În ziua evacuării, cel de-al doilea reclamant, care avea 12 ani, a fost lăsat singur și nu a fost plasat sub supravegherea unui adult. El a văzut operațiunea de poliție efectuate în cursul căreia tatăl său a fost injectat cu un tranchilizant să-l calmeze și apoi încătușat-l, după care ambii părinți au fost duși la poliție. Autoritățile trebuiau să ia în considerare vulnerabilitatea celui de-al doilea reclamant.
Funcționarea intervenției poliției a fost pregătită în prealabil, și prezența celui de al doilea reclamant la locul faptei nu a fost neașteptată pentru autorități, dar orice măsuri cu privire la băiatul nu au fost acceptate. Legea nr. 272/2004 a stabilit o serie de măsuri speciale de protecție împotriva unui copil care a fost privat temporar sau definitiv de supravegherea părinților. Cu toate că plasarea într-o instituție ar fi excesive și disproporționate, Guvernul nu a reușit să stabilească cu certitudine că autoritățile au considerat preporuchenie doua reclamantă privește persoanele fizice pe care îl cunoștea și care ar putea arăta după el în absența părinților.
În plus, nu a existat nici un motiv să se creadă că autoritățile au luat măsuri pentru a clarifica cauzele de-al doilea reclamant și intervenția poliției este adus la părinții săi la secția de poliție sau de ceea ce se așteaptă de la ei în cursul procedurii oficiale. Autoritățile nu au putut să nu cunoască impactul psihologic al incidentului asupra unui copil care suferă de stres emoțional, și el a început ca urmare a balbism. puternice sentimente de frică, anxietate și neputință, care umilește oamenii în ochi și în ochii rudelor, ar putea fi considerată ca fiind un tratament contrar articolului 3 al Convenției.
Faptul că, în prezența celui de al doilea reclamant la momentul accidentului și primul reclamant a răspuns că l-ar fi incitat sau chiar folosit ca un complice, el nu a putut exclude obligația autorităților de a proteja copilul și să ia măsuri pentru a limita orice abuz de amenințare.
Întrucât autoritățile naționale au omis să ia măsuri pentru a pune de-al doilea reclamant, sub supravegherea unui adult, în timp ce părinții lui au fost în poliție, sau să-i explice situația sa sau situația părinților, rigorile pragului de tratament, în conformitate cu articolul 3 din Convenție a fost atins, iar eșecul de a lua măsuri corespunzătoare sa ridicat la degradant tratamentul.
Conducător
A existat o încălcare a articolului 3 din cerințele Convenției (adoptate cu șase voturi „pentru“ one - „contra“).
De asemenea, Curtea în unanimitate, a constatat că a existat o încălcare a cerințelor paragrafului 1 al articolului 5 al Convenției în ceea ce privește reclamantul, ca privarea de libertate în iulie 2007 a avut nici o bază legală în dreptul statului pârât.
Compensare
În aplicarea articolului 41 al Convenției. Curtea a acordat reclamantului și celui de-al doilea reclamant suma de 4 500 EUR cu titlu de prejudiciu moral.
A se vedea, de asemenea, hotărârea Marii Camere a Curții Europene în cauza „Z și alții c. Regatul Unit“ (Z și alții v. Regatul Unit) la 10 mai 2001, plângerea N 29392/95.
Sursa de publicare: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/857-ioan-pop-si-al-ii-c-romaniei .
ECHR Decree of 6 December 2016 in the case of Ioan Pop and Others v. Romania (application No. 52924/09).
In 2009, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Romania.
In the case, a complaint was successfully considered for evading state bodies from ensuring that a minor child was under the supervision of an adult while his parents were in police custody. There has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The circumstances of the case
The first two applicants are the parents of the third. They were evicted from their homes by a court decision in November 2006, which was due on July 4, 2007. On that day, the first applicant resolutely resisted the eviction, but without success. The first applicant and the applicant were taken to the police, while the second applicant allegedly remained alone for several hours without adult supervision.
Law issues
Concerning compliance with Article 3 of the Convention (substantive aspect). On the day of eviction, the second applicant, who was 12 years old, was left alone and was not placed under the supervision of an adult. He saw how the police operation was conducted, during which the father was injected with a tranquilizer to calm him, and then handcuffed him, after which both parents were taken to the police. The authorities had to take into account the vulnerability of the second applicant.
The operation for police intervention was prepared in advance, and the presence of the second applicant at the scene was not unexpected to the authorities, but no measures were taken regarding the boy. Law No. 272/2004 established a series of special protective measures against a child who was temporarily or permanently deprived of parental supervision. Although the placement in any institution would be unreasonable and disproportionate, the respondent State did not establish with all certainty that the authorities did in fact consider the second applicant's entrustment to the cares of the private person whom he knew and who could look after him in the absence of his parents.
In addition, there was no reason to believe that the authorities had taken steps to explain to the second applicant the reasons for the police intervention and the delivery of his parents to the police station or what was expected of them during the official proceedings. The authorities could not help but be aware of the psychological impact of the incident on the child who suffered from emotional distress, and as a result, a stammer began. Strong feelings of fear, anxiety and helplessness, capable of humiliating people in their eyes and in the eyes of relatives, could be considered an appeal that violates Article 3 of the Convention.
The fact that the first applicant was also responsible for the presence of the second applicant at the time of the incident, who allegedly incited him or even used him as an accomplice, could not exclude the authorities' obligation to protect the child and take measures to limit any threat of abuse.
Since the domestic authorities did not take measures to place the second applicant under the supervision of an adult while his parents were in the police force, or to explain to him his situation or the situation of his parents, the threshold of severity of treatment in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention was reached, and the failure to take appropriate measures amounted to degrading worthiness treatment.
Resolution
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (adopted by six votes "for" at one - "against").
The Court also unanimously found that there had been a violation of the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant, since her deprivation of liberty in July 2007 had no legal basis in the law of the respondent State.
Compensation
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded the applicant and the second applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
See also the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court in the case "Z and Others v. The United Kingdom" of 10 May 2001, complaint No. 29392/95.
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/858-ioan-pop-and-others-v-romania .
