Новости от 09 октября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
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 2008, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the complainants (14 people) complained about the annulment of court decisions rendered in their favor following the consideration of cases in the courts of 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 subordinate by the courts.
On April 4, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirement of Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in respect of 13 applicants, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to property) in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention in respect of one applicant, and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants 21,500 euros as a fair compensation. Applicants were awarded various amounts from 1,500 to 5,000 euros.
Resolution of the ECHR of April 4, 2017 in the case of Sadkov and others (Sadkova and Others) v. The Russian Federation (аpplications N 17229/06, 26346/06, 40526/06, 41729/08, 41756/08, 41759/08, 41761 / 08, 41768/08, 41773/08, 41842/08, 41854/08 and 41861/08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1052-sadkova-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the complaint of the applicant that his forced placement in a psychiatric hospital was an unlawful deprivation of liberty. The case has violated the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2008, 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 St. Petersburg, complained that his forced placement in a psychiatric hospital was an unlawful deprivation of liberty.
On April 4, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 1,500 euros non-pecuniary damage.
Decision of the ECHR of April 4, 2017 in the case of V.K. (V.K.) against the Russian Federation (аpplication No. 9139/08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1053-v-k-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the complaint of the applicant to the non-execution of decisions of domestic courts, rendered in his favor, about the recovery of wage arrears from the state enterprise, as well as the lack of effective remedies in this regard. In the case of violations of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In 2006, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant complained about the failure to execute the decisions of the domestic courts in his favor, about collecting wage arrears from the state enterprise, and about the lack of effective remedies in this regard.
On April 4, 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 (right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to protection of property), and ordered the respondent Government to pay the applicant 2,121 euros in respect of pecuniary damage and 2,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Resolution of the ECHR of April 4, 2017 in the case of Antoshkin v. Russia (аpplication N 46686/06).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1054-antoshkin-c-russia .
The case successfully considered the complaint of the applicant that his son died from wounds resulting from the use of weapons in the process of dispersing residents who had gathered for a public rally in 2006 in one of the villages of the Republic of Dagestan, and that in this respect an effective investigation was conducted. The case has violated the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2008, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant complained that his son had died from wounds resulting from the use of weapons in the process of dispersing residents who had gathered for a public rally in 2006 in a village in the Republic of Dagestan. The applicant also pointed out that no effective investigation had been carried out in this regard.
On March 30, 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 2 of the Convention (the right to life) in its substantive and procedural aspects, and by 14 votes against three ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 50,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The joint concurring opinion was expressed by judges A. Nussberger (elected from Germany) and P. Lemmens (elected from Belgium), the joint dissenting opinion was expressed by judges G. Raimondi (elected from Italy), S. O'Leary (elected from Ireland) and K. Ranzoni (elected from Liechtenstein).
Resolution of the ECHR of March 30, 2017 in the case of "Nagmetov (Nagmetov) v. The Russian Federation" (аpplication N 35589/08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1055-nagmetov-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint of ill-treatment of the applicant during his stay in custody in order to obtain confessions. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2007, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant (at the time of the events in question was a minor) claimed that in 2004 he was subjected to ill-treatment in the city of Nizhny Novgorod while he was in custody in order to extract confessions. After being released, the applicant recorded the injuries in a medical institution, and the victim of the crime who appeared for interrogation indicated that she was unfamiliar with the applicant and that the crime had been committed by another person. No criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.
On 28 March 2017, on a complaint filed by the applicant, 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 its substantive and procedural aspects, and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 48,550 euros as non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling of March 28, 2017 in the case of Shestopalov v. The Russian Federation (аpplication N 46248/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1056-shestopalov-c-russia .
The case successfully reviewed the complaints of the applicants, who owned various shares in the ownership of the land and the house built on it, for violation of their property rights as a result of expropriation, as well as the fact that they were offered various amounts of compensation for the land and house being withdrawn, however abandoned them, considering them insufficient and pointing out violations of the expropriation procedure itself. 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 2005 and 2006, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the claimants, who owned various shares in the ownership of the land and the house built on it, complained about the violation of their property rights as a result of the expropriation. The applicants were offered various amounts of compensation for the seized land plot and the house, but they refused them, considering them insufficient and pointing out violations of the expropriation procedure itself.
On March 28, 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the European Court unanimously decided that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to protection of property), and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicants 3,000 euros in as compensation for moral harm to everyone.
ECHR ruling of March 28, 2017 on the case of Volchkova and Mironov (Volchkova and Mironov) v. Russia (аpplications N 45668/05 and 2292/06).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1057-volchkova-and-mironov-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention in places of serving sentences, as well as the lack of effective remedies in this regard. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 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 (seven people) complained about the inadequate conditions of their detention in places of punishment, as well as the lack of effective remedies in this regard.
On March 21, 2017, on complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy). Applicants were awarded various amounts from 5,000 to 11,500 euros.
ECHR judgment of March 21, 2017 in the case of Kargashin and Others (Kargashin and Others) v. Russia (аpplications No. 66757/14, 73424/14, 5138/15, 5678/15, 8055/15, 9234/15 and 11460 /15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1058-kargashin-and-others-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined the applicants' complaints about the inadequate conditions of their detention in places of serving sentences, as well as the lack of effective remedies in this regard. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2012, 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 (10 people) complained about the inadequate conditions of their detention in places of punishment, as well as the lack of effective remedies in this regard.
On March 21, 2017, on complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy). Applicants were awarded various amounts from 5,000 to 11,800 euros.
ECHR Ordinance of March 21, 2017 in the case of Mozharov and Others (Mozharov and Others) v. Russia (аpplications No. 16401/12, 67528/14, 74106/14, 77730/14, 77733/14, 77916/14, 6141 / 15, 8376/15, 9166/15 and 12321/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1059-mozharov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered the complaint of the applicant to the violation of the right to family life, as he was evicted from the dwelling he occupied, which he did not belong to on any right. The case has violated the requirements of Article 8 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 a violation of his right to family life, as he was evicted from his dwelling, which did not belong to him in any right. After the applicant's girlfriend died, the neighbors stopped letting the applicant into a communal apartment, which the woman used in the social contract. The local authorities reported that the applicant should vacate the room, as he does not have the right to reside in it.
On March 14, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for private and family life) and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicant 5,000 euros as compensation moral harm. The applicant did not submit any claim for costs and expenses.
Resolution of the ECHR of March 14, 2017 in the case of Yevgeny Zakharov (Yevgeniy Zakharov) v. Russia (аpplication N 66610/10).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1060-yevgeniy-zakharov-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the abduction of the applicants, ill-treatment of them, the failure to conduct a proper investigation of these circumstances, the seizure of the applicants' property during the abduction. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3, 5 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 2010, complainants were assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaint, the applicants (four people) complained that they had been abducted in 2006 in the city of Nazran and subjected to ill-treatment and that no proper investigation had been carried out into these circumstances. The applicants also complained that their property had been seized during their abduction.
On March 14, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) in its substantive and procedural aspects, 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person), article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to protection of property), and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 19,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage. The first, second and fourth applicants were also awarded compensation for pecuniary damage in the amount of 1,610, 1,160, and 830 euros, respectively.
ECHR ruling of March 14, 2017 on the case of Orlov and Others (Russian Federation) (аpplication N 5632/10).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1061-orlov-and-others-c-russia-2 .
