Новости от 07 октября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the excessive length of the proceedings in their criminal cases. The case has violated the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2008 and 2015, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (three people) complained about the excessive length of the proceedings in their criminal cases.
On May 4, 2017, on complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay 2,500, 2,000 and 1 600 euros from the first to the third applicant respectively in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage and court costs.
ECHR ruling of May 4, 2017 on the case of Potapyeva and Others (Potapyeva and Others) v. Russia (аpplications N 10662/08, 16825/08 and 22866/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1032-potapyeva-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint of ill-treatment of the applicant by police officers with a view to obtaining confessions, the absence of effective remedies for the applicant. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2009, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant complained of ill-treatment by police officers with a view to extracting confessions. The applicant also argued that he did not have an effective remedy for these circumstances.
On May 2, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in both its material and procedural aspects and that there is no need to consider a complaint of a violation of article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy), obliging the respondent State to pay the applicant 20,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR Ordinance of May 2, 2017 in the case of Sitnikov (Russian Federation) (аpplication No. 14769/09).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1033-sitnikov-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered complaints of ill-treatment of the applicants by the police officers with a view to obtaining confessions, failure to conduct an effective investigation into the facts of ill-treatment of the applicants. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2009 and 2014, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the complainants complained about the ill-treatment of the police officers with a view to extracting a confession and that no effective investigation had been conducted in this connection.
On May 2, 2017, on the complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in both its material and procedural aspects and that there is no need to consider a complaint of a violation 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy), obliging the respondent state to pay the first applicant 30,000 euros, the second 20,000 euros, and the third 45,000 euros as compensation for moral damages. harm.
Resolution of the European Court of Human Rights dated May 02, 2017 in the case of Olisov and Others v. Russia (аpplications no. 10825/09, 12412/14 and 35192/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1034-olisov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the complaint of the applicant, who is a disabled person of the second group, that during the detention he was not provided with adequate medical assistance, since the prosthesis that the applicant needed for movement was not provided to him within a reasonable time. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2012, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant, who is a disabled person in the second group, complained that during the detention he was not provided with adequate medical assistance, since the prosthesis that the complainant needed to travel was not provided to him within a reasonable time.
On 2 May 2017, on a complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicant 15,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
Resolution of the ECHR of May 02, 2017 in the case of Nizov v. Russia (аpplication N 66823/12).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1035-nizov-c-russia .
In the case, the complaint of the applicant on partial non-execution of the decision of the court of the Russian Federation passed in his favor was successfully examined, since the amounts awarded to him were paid by the defendant, the military unit, only partially. In the case of violations of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In 2008, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained about the partial non-execution of the decision of the court of the Russian Federation, passed in his favor, since the amounts awarded to him were paid by the defendant, the military unit, only partially.
On May 2, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to property protection) . The claimant did not submit claims for fair compensation.
ECHR Ordinance of May 2, 2017 in the case of Sokolov v. Russia (аpplication N 62068/08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1036-sokolov-c-russia .
The case successfully reviewed the complaints of the applicants, who were bona fide purchasers of residential premises, that they had been deprived of apartments that had previously been sold fraudulently, but the applicants were not aware of this during the purchase of housing, and that their eviction and their family members violated the right to respect for family life. The case has violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2013, 2014 and 2015, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (four people), who were bona fide purchasers, complained that they had been deprived of apartments that had previously been sold by fraud, but that the applicants were not aware of during the purchase of housing. The complainants also argued that evicting them and their family members was a violation of the right to respect for family life.
On May 2, 2017, on the complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to property protection) in respect of three applicants (since the fourth applicant did not own the apartment and was only a member of the third applicant’s family) and that there is no need to consider a complaint of violation of Article 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for private and family life), obliging the respondent state to pay 5,000 euros per and the third applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The second applicant did not submit any claims for just satisfaction.
Resolution of the European Court of Human Rights dated May 02, 2017 in the case of Zimonin and Others (v. Zimonin and Others) against the Russian Federation (аpplications N 59291/13, 14639/14 and 14582/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1037-zimonin-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the applicant's complaint about the failure to execute court decisions rendered in his favor, about collecting wage arrears from the municipal enterprise, as well as about the lack of effective remedies in connection with this circumstance. In the case of violations of paragraph 1 of Article 6 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In 2013, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant, who lives in Pechora, complained about the failure to execute court decisions in his favor, about collecting wage arrears from the municipal enterprise, as well as about the lack of effective remedies in connection with this circumstance.
On 2 May 2017, on a complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy), articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to property protection), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 18,950 euros in respect of pecuniary damage and 1,623 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling of May 02, 2017 in the case of Menshikov v. Russia (аpplication N 36888/13).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1038-menshikov-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint of ill-treatment of the complainant by police officers with a view to obtaining confessions, failure to conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment of the complainant. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2010, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant complained of ill-treatment by officers of the internal affairs bodies in order to extract a confession and that no effective investigation had been carried out in this connection.
On May 2, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in both its material and procedural aspects and that there is no need to consider a complaint of a violation of article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy), obliging the respondent State to pay the applicant 20,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Resolution of the ECHR of May 02, 2017 in the case of Kondakov (v. Russian Federation) (аpplication no. 31632/10).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1039-kondakov-c-russia .
In the case, complaints about cancellation of court decisions in favor of the applicants, due to incorrect application of the rules of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts, were successfully examined. The case has violated the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2006 and 2007, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the complainants (nine people) complained about the annulment of court decisions made in their favor following the consideration of cases in the first and appellate instances in civil proceedings, in the procedure of supervision by higher courts because of incorrect application of the rules of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts.
On April 25, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) in respect of eight applicants, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to property) in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention in respect of one applicant, and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants 17,000 euros as a fair compensation. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 1,500 to 5,000 euros.
Resolution of the ECHR of April 25, 2017 in the case of Isayev and Others (Isayev and Others) v. Russia (аpplications No. 20707/06, 29518/06, 39006/06, 7527/07, 7678/07, 18756/07, 36533 / 07, 46727/07 and 55639/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1040-isayev-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the complaint of the applicant that bringing him to responsibility in a lawsuit for the protection of honor and dignity for publishing an article alleging a violation of tenants' rights to use the total area due to the actions of an official was a violation of the right to freedom of opinion. The case has violated the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2005, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant in the case was a publisher of a news newspaper specializing in the housing market in the Moscow region. The applicant complained that bringing him to responsibility in a lawsuit on protection of honor and dignity for publishing an article alleging a violation of tenants' rights to use the total area due to the actions of T., who was the deputy head of one of the boards in Moscow , was a violation of the right to freedom of opinion.
On April 25, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (the right to freedom of expression). The claimant did not submit claims for fair compensation.
ECHR Ordinance of April 25, 2017 on the case of OOO Kvartirny Ryad, OOO Izdatelskiy Tsentr Kvartirnyy Ryad LLC (аpplication No. 39748/05).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1041-ooo-izdatelskiy-tsentr-kvartirnyy-ryad-c-russia .