Новости от 22 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ

Обновлено 22.09.2018 07:43

 

Пресуда на ЕСЧП од 13 октомври 2016 година во случајот Китановска-Станојковиќ и други против Македонија (жалба бр 2319/14).

Во 2014 година, жалителите беа помогнати при подготовката на жалбата. Потоа, жалбата беше доставена до Македонија.

Во случајот, жалбата на жалителите за ненавремено извршување на казната што му била изречена на обвинетиот, осудена за брутален напад врз жалителите, била успешно разгледана. Случајот вклучува повреда на барањата од член 2 од Конвенцијата за заштита на човековите права и основни слободи.

 

ОКОЛНОСТИ НА СЛУЧАЈОТ


Првиот жалител претрпе многу сериозни повреди за време на грабежот на нејзиниот дом. Нејзиниот сопруг, таткото на вториот и третиот жалител, исто така бил нападнат за време на истиот настан, а потоа починал од повреди. Напаѓачите биле осудени за грабежи под отежнувачки околности и осудени на различни услови на затвор. Сепак, еден од напаѓачите продолжил да живее сосема спротивно на апликантите 18 месеци пред да почне да ја издржува казната. Во нивната апликација до Европскиот суд, жалителите се жалеа дека ненавременото извршување на казната за лишување од слобода предизвикало повреда на членот 2 од Конвенцијата.


ПРАШАЊА ЗА ПРАВОТО

 

Во врска со усогласеноста со членот 2 од Конвенцијата. Фактот дека користењето на сила од напаѓачите против првиот жалител не резултирало со нејзината смрт е чисто случајно. Таа доби опасни по живот повреди, па затоа член 2 од Конвенцијата е применлив за околностите на случајот. Европскиот суд смета дека по грабежот напаѓачите биле осудени и осудени. Жалителите не критикуваат однесувањето на кривична истрага или неговиот исход, а Судот смета дека властите во согласност со процедуралните обврски кои произлегуваат од членот 2 по однос на кривичната постапка. Меѓутоа, барањето за ефективност на кривичната постапка во согласност со член 2 од Конвенцијата, исто така, може да се толкува како наметнување на обврска на државите да ги спроведуваат конечните пресуди на судот без непотребно одложување. Ова се должи на фактот дека извршувањето на казната изречена во контекст на правото на живот, мора да се смета како дел од процедуралните обврски на државата според овој член од Конвенцијата.

Во однос на фактите на случајот, Судот утврдил дека тужената држава не покажуваат внимателност потребни во извршувањето на казната затвор, и одложувања се целосно одговорни за вршење власти не може да се смета за разумна. Врз основа на ова, Судот заклучи дека системот на тужената држава во однос на извршувањето на казните за лишување од слобода се покажал како неефикасен во конкретниот случај и, според тоа, имало повреда на член 2 од Конвенцијата.


ОДЛУКА


Повредата на барањата од член 2 од Конвенцијата (едногласно) е сторена во случајот.


КОМПЕНЗАЦИЈА


Во примената на членот 41 од Конвенцијата. Судот му додели на секој жалител 5.000 евра (ЕУР) за нематеријална штета.

 

Извор на објавување: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/893-kitanovska-stanojkovik-i-drugi-protiv-makedonija .

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 13 October 2016 in the case of Kitanovska-Stanojkovic and Others v. Macedonia (application No. 2319/14).

In 2014, the applicants were assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Macedonia.

In the case, the applicants' complaint on the untimely execution of the punishment imposed on the accused, convicted of a brutal attack on the applicants, was successfully considered. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE


The first applicant suffered very serious injuries during the robbery of her home. Her husband, the father of the second and third applicants, was also attacked during the same incident and subsequently died of injuries. The attackers were convicted of robbery under aggravating circumstances and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. However, one of the attackers continued to live next door to the applicants for 18 months before he started serving his sentence. In their application to the European Court, the applicants complained that the untimely execution of the sentence of deprivation of liberty caused a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.


ISSUES OF LAW


Concerning compliance with Article 2 of the Convention. The fact that the use of force by the attackers against the first applicant did not result in her death was purely accidental. She received life-threatening injuries, therefore Article 2 of the Convention is applicable to the circumstances of the case. The European Court considered that after the robbery the attackers were convicted and sentenced. The applicants did not criticize the conduct of the criminal proceedings or its outcome, and the Court considers that the authorities complied with the procedural obligations that arose in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of criminal proceedings. However, the requirement of the effectiveness of criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention can also be interpreted as imposing an obligation on States to enforce the final judgments of the court without undue delay. This is due to the fact that the execution of the sentence rendered in the context of the right to life should be considered as an integral part of the procedural obligation of the State under this article of the Convention.

With regard to the facts of the case, the Court decided that the authorities of the respondent State did not show the required diligence in the execution of the sentence of deprivation of liberty, and the delays, the responsibility for which was entirely borne by the authorities, could not be considered reasonable. On this basis, the Court concluded that the system of the respondent State with regard to the enforcement of sentences of deprivation of liberty proved ineffective in the present case and, accordingly, there was a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.


DECISION


The violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.


COMPENSATION


In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. The Court awarded each applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/894-kitanovska-stanojkovic-and-others-v-macedonia .

 

 

L'arrêt de la CEDH du 6 octobre 2016 dans l'affaire Beausoleil c. France (requête no 63979/11).

 

En 2011, le requérant a été assisté dans la préparation de la requête. Par la suite, la requête a été communiquée à la France.

 

En l'espèce, une plainte a été examinée avec succès en vue de la reconnaissance par le tribunal des comptes du demandeur d'un véritable comptable de fonds publics transférés illégalement et utilisés conjointement avec le maire et la municipalité. Il y a eu violation de l'article 6 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales.

 

 

 

CIRCONSTANCES DE L'ESPÈCE

 


La procédure applicable aux cas de « contrôle effectif » des fonds publics, couvre trois étapes distinctes et indépendantes, dont chacune se termine par la décision finale, qui est habituellement ou d'une plainte en cassation peut être soumis: d'une part, le tribunal accorde le statut de « partis réels comptables responsable de l’utilisation des fonds publics; d'autre part, les comptables réels soumettent leurs rapports à la Cour, qui tient compte de leurs revenus et dépenses, et si le revenu est supérieur au montant alloué pour les comptables des dépenses réelles et n'a pas payé le montant correspondant à l'excédent dans le Trésor public, ils sont débiteurs du solde manquant avant cette autorité publique ; En troisième lieu, le tribunal peut décider d'une amende le contrôle effectif de l'intervention en fonction de la comptabilité publique (voir l'arrêt de la Cour européenne de justice « Tedesco contre la France » (Tedesco c. France) le 10 mai 2007, la plainte N 11950/02.).

 

Le requérant était un ancien trésorier d'une association de droit privé - un comité public du personnel de la municipalité. En 1997, la Cour des comptes a rendu une décision finale, déclarer un expert-comptable réelle des fonds publics qui ont été transférés illégalement et utilisés, ainsi que le maire et la municipalité (cas « Richard-Dubarry c France » (Richard-Dubarry c. France), la plainte N 53929 / 00, décision du 7 octobre 2003 et résolution du 1er juin 2004). La Cour des comptes a déjà évoqué ces violations dans son rapport annuel public pour 1995. Le texte, apparemment une erreur d'impression: l'arrêt de la CEDH "Richard-Dubarry (Richard-Dubarry) contre la France" (plainte N 53929/00) a la date 07.05.2003 et non 07.05.2010.

 

En effet, la Cour européenne a rendu de tels actes, mais le nom du requérant n’a pas été mentionné dans l’affaire.

 

En 2008, la Cour des comptes a déterminé le solde final de ce rapport. Le requérant, l’association et le maire ont été reconnus comme débiteurs conjoints en payant à la municipalité plus de 400 000 euros. Le Conseil d'Etat a rejeté le recours du requérant.

 

Après le précédent recours en cassation, le Conseil d’État a rejeté l’allégation du requérant selon laquelle le tribunal n’était pas impartial dans les termes suivants:

 

- se inclusion de références à la même vitesse du précédent rapport public, publié par la Cour des comptes, en principe, ne pouvait être considéré préjuger de la décision du solde final;

 

- en l'espèce, les liens pertinents dans le rapport public pourraient être considérés comme préjugent l'existence des opérations constituant le contrôle effectif, mais ne préjuge pas de l'évaluation faite par la Cour des comptes, quand il détermine le solde final après une comparaison précise de la gestion réelle.

 


QUESTIONS DE DROIT

 


En ce qui concerne le respect du paragraphe 1 de l’article 6 de la Convention. La seule question qui se posait en l'espèce était de savoir si les références dans le rapport de 1995 avaient prédéterminé la détermination du solde final. Soi-disant, il y avait une différence entre les étapes de l'établissement de la gestion effective de l'affaire et déterminer le solde final, et au cours de la deuxième étape, le tribunal avait accès à des informations qui ne sont pas disponibles lorsque le rapport public a été publié.

 

Cependant, cette différence n'exclut pas la possibilité que, dans les circonstances particulières de l'espèce, une référence à un rapport public serait préjuger de la décision finale du résidu. Le Conseil d'Etat a permis une telle opportunité.

 

La Cour des comptes a précédemment présenté une version claire et détaillée des transactions illégales impliquant l'association dont le trésorier était le requérant:

 

- dans un rapport public, l'affaire a été considérée dans son ensemble, et il ne fait pas de distinction entre la déclaration de la gestion proprement dite et le calcul des montants indûment versés, auquel il se réfère;

 

- l'association a été explicitement mentionnée dans le rapport avec un calcul détaillé de ces montants;

 

- la dépense a été déterminée avec des détails précis (par exemple, une "prime" spécifique versée aux fonctionnaires);

 

- Sans une mention directe du nom du demandeur, le rapport lui a permis d’identifier des personnes connaissant le fonctionnement de l’association ou souhaitant enquêter sur ses opérations;

 

- enfin, le rapport évoque des "conséquences extrêmement dommageables", exprimant ainsi un jugement sur la gravité des actions et l'ampleur des montants en cause.

 

Ces facteurs étaient suffisants pour établir que la référence dans le rapport pourrait obliger le demandeur pour des raisons objectives de craindre que la Cour des comptes ne peut pas être impartial pour déterminer le solde final du compte.

 

En outre, il convient de noter que, dans les décisions ultérieures du Conseil d'Etat a précisé la mesure dans laquelle le rapport public devrait être réputé avoir accepté une certaine position, ce qui empêche la Cour des comptes pour déterminer le solde final et l'application d'une pénalité aux parties intéressées.

 

Ainsi, en l'espèce, la Cour des comptes n'a pas fourni les garanties d'impartialité requises par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention au stade de la détermination du solde final.

 


DECISION

 

 

 

La violation des exigences de l'article 6 de la Convention (unanimité) a été commise.

 


COMPENSATION

 


Dans l'application de l'article 41 de la Convention. La demande d’indemnisation pour dommage matériel a été rejetée.

 

 

 

Source de publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/895-beausoleil-c-france .

 

 

 

 

 

The ECHR judgment of 6 October 2016 in the case of Beausoleil v. France (application No. 63979/11).

 

In 2011, the applicant was assisted in preparing the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to France.

 

In the case, a complaint was successfully considered for the recognition by the Accounts Tribunal of the applicant of an actual accountant of public funds that were illegally transferred and used in conjunction with the mayor and the municipality. There has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


The procedure applicable to the cases of "actual management" by public funds encompasses three separate and independent stages, each of which concludes with a final decision on which a simple or cassation complaint can be lodged: first, the court grants the status of "actual accountants" to individuals , responsible for the use of public funds; secondly, the actual accountants submit their reports to the court, which examines their income and expenses, and if the income exceeds the amount allocated for the expenditure and the actual accountants have not paid the amount corresponding to the surplus in the public coffers, they are considered debtors of the missing balance before this public authority ; thirdly, the court may decide to fine the actual governors for intervening in the functions of the public accountant (see Tedesco v. France, judgment of 10 May 2007, application no. 11950/02).

 

The applicant was a former treasurer of a private-law association - a public committee of the municipality's staff. In 1997, the Court of Accounts made a final decision declaring it to be the actual accountant of public funds that were illegally transferred and used, together with the mayor and the municipality (case "Richard-Dubarry v. France", complaint No. 53929 / 00, Decision of 7 October 2003 and Resolution of 1 June 2004). The Court of Accounts previously referred to these violations in its public annual report for 1995. The text of the document appears to be a misprint: The ECHR decision in the case of Richard-Dubarry v. France (complaint No. 53929/00) is dated 07.05.2003, not 07.05.2010.

 

Indeed, the European Court issued such acts, but the applicant's name was not mentioned in the case.

 

In 2008, the Accounts Court determined the final balance for this report. The applicant, the association and the mayor were recognized as joint debtors in paying the municipality more than 400,000 euros. The State Council rejected the applicant's appeal.

 

After the previous cassation appeal, the State Council rejected the applicant's allegation that there was no impartiality of the court in the following terms:

 

- in itself, the inclusion of references to the same expenditure in a previous public report published by the Court of Accounts in principle could not be considered prejudicial to the decision on the final balance;

 

- in the present case, the relevant references in the public report could potentially be considered prejudicial to the existence of transactions that constitute actual management but do not prejudge the assessment made by the Court of Accounts when it determines the final balance after an accurate comparison of the actual management.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The only issue that arose in the present case was whether the references in the 1995 report had predetermined the determination of the final balance. Presumably, there was a difference between the stages of establishing the case for actual management and determining the final balance, and during the second stage the court had access to information that did not have when the public report was issued.

 

Nevertheless, this difference did not exclude the possibility that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the reference to the public report could constitute a predetermination of the determination of the final balance. The State Council allowed such an opportunity.

 

The Court of Accounts previously presented a clear and detailed version of the illegal transactions involving the association, whose treasurer was the applicant:

 

- in the public record the case was considered as a whole, and it did not distinguish between the declaration on actual management and the calculation of wrongfully paid amounts, to which he referred;

 

- the association was explicitly mentioned in the report together with a detailed calculation of these amounts;

 

- the expense was determined with precise details (for example, a specific "bonus" paid to officials);

 

- Without a direct mention of the applicant by name, the report allowed him to identify persons familiar with how the association functions or who wish to investigate its operations;

 

- and, finally, the report referred to "extremely harmful consequences", thereby expressing a judgment on the seriousness of the actions and the scale of the amounts involved.

 

These factors together were sufficient to establish that the references in the report could cause the applicant on objective grounds to fear that the Court of Accounts may not be impartial in determining the final account balance.

 

It should also be noted that in subsequent decisions the State Council clarified the limits in which the public report should be considered to have taken a specific position, preventing the Court of Accounts from determining the final balance and applying a fine to the persons concerned.

 

Thus, in the present case, the Court of Account failed to provide the guarantees of impartiality required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention at the stage of determining the final balance.

 


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 claim for compensation for pecuniary damage was rejected.

 

 

 

Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/896-beausoleil-v-france .

 

 

AİHM kararına ilişkin olarak 01 Ekim 2016 tarihli Cevrioğlu v. Türkiye davası (şikayet no. 69546/12).

 

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

 

Durumda, devlet yetkililerinin, şantiyenin güvenliğini doğrulamak için gerekli önlemleri almama konusundaki şikayeti, başvuranın oğlunun öldüğü kaza sonucunda, mahkemelerin kazaya uygun şekilde cevap vermemesi başarılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Dava, İnsan Haklarının ve Temel Özgürlüklerin Korunmasına İlişkin Sözleşme'nin 2. maddesinin şartlarının ihlal edildiğini içeriyordu.

 

 

 

OLAYIN DURUMU

 


1998 yılında, 10 yaşındaki başvuranın oğlu da bu olayın sonucu öldüğünü, bir arkadaşı ile oynanan şantiye, su ile kapatılmamış bir kabın içine düştükten sonra boğuldu. Üç belediye yetkilileri ihmal yüzünden ölüme yol için kovuşturmaya uğradı, ama onlara karşı dava sonunda askıya alınmıştır. Başvuru sahibi ve sonradan idare mahkemelerinde tazminat için dava öldü çocukların aileleri diğer üyeleri, ancak belediyenin hiçbir arıza olmadığını gerekçesiyle reddedildi.

 

suç aynı ya da daha büyük bir önem kararlı değil ise, 23 Nisan 1999 tarihinden önce işlenen bazı suçlara ilişkin cezai işlem koşuluyla Kanunu N 4616 Madde 1 (4) 'e göre, süspansiyon haline getirilmiş ve daha sonra sonlandırılmalıdır önümüzdeki beş yıl boyunca suçlandı.

 

Sözleşmenin işlemler başvuru sahibi şantiye denetlenmiş asla ve Türk gemilerinin adına bir kaza hiç uygun cevap olmamasından dolayı yetkililer, gerekli önlemleri almak başarısız olduğunu iddia etti.

 


HUKUK SORUNLARI

 


Sözleşmenin 2. Maddesi ile uyum konusunda. yaşama hakkının yanlışlıkla ihlallerini içeren durumlarda AİHS'nin 2. maddesinde yer alan devletin yükümlülüğü halka açık yerlerde insanların güvenliğini korumak değil, aynı zamanda düzenleyici çerçevenin etkin işleyişinin sağlanması dahil etmek kuralların benimsenmesi ile sınırlı değildi. Özellikle yerleşim alanlarında gerekli güvenlik önlemleri şantiyelerde, yokluğunda, savunmasız grupların bu tür dahil da daha olası tehditler aşina değil, sadece profesyonel inşaatçılar etkileyebilir yaşamı tehdit eden kazalar, tehdidi genel halk bir risk teşkil Bu tür tehditlerin nesnesi haline gelebilen çocuklar olarak. Bu bağlamda, mekanizmanın titiz denetim yokluğu nedeniyle doğası ve kapsamı sınırlı bir sorun oluşturamaz diğer bazı etkinliklere durumun aksine, mevcut durumda davalı Devlet uğraşmak zorunda toplumun üyelerine bir kusursuz sorumluluk olmuştur Çok gerçek tehditler, inşaat işlerinin kendi evlerinde yaratıldı. Mahkeme bu durumda kaza için birincil sorumluluk sahibi de önemli bir faktör olarak düşünülebilir denetimlerin etkili bir sistem oluşturarak davalı Devletin yetkilileri kaçarak, inşaat sahasına taşıyan karar vermiş;.

 

davalı Devlet görevlilerinin yapım işi ancak son zamanlarda başladığından beri kaza, öngörülemeyen iddia rağmen rezervuar kazadan önce en az sekiz ay boyunca var olmuş ve belediye bildiği için, Mahkeme denetim kaçırma sorumlu davalı Devlete o mantıksız döşeme dikkate almaz ilk günden itibaren inşaat işleri hakkında. Mahkeme kazaları önlemek için şantiye olsun doğru doğrulama konusunda tahminde mümkün olmakla birlikte, sahipleri teşvik edeceğini tür doğrulama tesis kapatabilir ve makul görüşüne göre sorumluluktan davalı Devletin yetkilileri serbest bırakabilecek, iyi çevresindeki önlemleri almak Sözleşmenin 2. maddesi uyarınca.

 

Türk mahkemelerinin reaksiyonu için olduğu gibi, herhangi bir cezai işlem kesinlikle yukarıdaki sakıncaları yüklememiş çok belediye mahkemelerine karşı belediye yetkilileri ya da idari işlem yetkilileri karşı tesis: cezai işlem bir in-derinlik vermiş değil, ilgili görevlilerin sorumluluk ve idari mahkemenin yargı değerlendirmeksizin askıya alındı inşaat projelerinin doğrulanması için düzenleyici çerçevenin incelenmesi ve uygulanması için belediyenin sorumluluğu.

 


KARAR

 


AİHS'nin 2. maddesinin gerekliliklerinin ihlali (oybirliğiyle) davada gerçekleşmiştir.

 


TAZMİNAT

 


Sözleşmenin 41. Maddesinin uygulanmasında. Mahkeme, başvurana manevi tazminat olarak 10.000 avro tazminat ödenmesine karar vermiştir.

 

 

 

Yayının kaynağı: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/897-cevrioglu-turkiye-davasi .

 

 

 

 

 

ECHR judgment of 04 October 2016 in the case of Cevrioglu v. Turkey (application No. 69546/12).

 

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

 

In the case, the complaint on the failure of the state authorities to take necessary measures to verify the safety of the construction site, as a result of the accident at which the applicant's son died, the lack of proper response by the courts to an accident, was successfully considered. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

 

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 


In 1998, the applicant's 10-year-old son drowned, falling into an unclosed water tank on the construction site, where he played with a friend who also died as a result of this incident. Three municipal officials were prosecuted for causing death by negligence, but the proceedings against them were eventually suspended. The applicant and other family members of the deceased children subsequently sued for compensation in administrative courts, but he was dismissed on the grounds that there was no wine from the municipality.

 

According to Article 1 (4) of Law No. 4616, which provided that criminal proceedings for certain crimes committed before April 23, 1999, should be suspended and subsequently terminated if a crime of the same or more severity was not committed accused for the next five years.

 

In the conventional proceedings, the applicant argued that the public authorities did not take the necessary security measures, since no inspections were ever conducted at the construction site and there was no proper reaction to the accident by the courts of Turkey.

 


ISSUES OF LAW

 


Concerning compliance with Article 2 of the Convention. The duty of the State under Article 2 of the Convention in cases involving unintentional violations of the right to life was not limited to the adoption of rules to protect the safety of people in public places, but also included ensuring the effective functioning of this regulatory framework. In the absence of necessary security measures, construction sites, especially in residential areas, pose a risk of threatening life-threatening accidents that may affect not only professional builders more familiar with possible threats, but also the public at large, including vulnerable groups, such as children who can easily become the object of such threats. In this regard, unlike the situation in some other activities where the absence of a rigorous verification mechanism may not pose a problem due to their nature and limited scope, the respondent State in the present case had a more severe responsibility to the members of society who had to face very real threats, created by construction work at their very house. While the European Court ruled that the main responsibility for the accident in the present case was borne by the owner of the construction site, the evasion of the authorities of the respondent State from the creation of an effective system of inspections could also be considered an essential factor.

 

Although the Government argued that the accident could not be foreseen, since construction work had only recently begun, the Court does not consider it unreasonable to charge the respondent State with responsibility for evading the inspection, since the reservoir existed no less than eight months before the incident and the municipality knew about construction work from the first day. While the Court can not speculate on whether a proper inspection of a construction site could have prevented an accident, such an inspection could induce the owner to close the facility and take precautions around the well, which, in a reasonable way, could free the respondent Government from liability in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention.

 

As for the reaction of the courts of Turkey, the courts did not clearly establish the aforementioned shortcomings in the criminal proceedings brought against the officials of the municipality or in administrative proceedings against the municipality itself: the criminal proceedings were suspended without judicial assessment of the responsibility of the respective officials, and the administrative court did not carry out an in-depth a study of the regulatory framework for the verification of construction projects and the responsibility of the municipality for its implementation.

 


DECISION

 


The violation of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (unanimously) was committed in the case.

 


COMPENSATION

 


In the 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/898-cevrioglu-v-turkey .