Новости от 13 октября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the unlawful detention of the applicant in custody pending extradition, the late consideration of his complaints about the detention order. In the case of violations of the requirements of subparagraph "f" of paragraph 1 of Article 5, paragraph 4 of Article 5 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, residing in Uzbekistan, was suspected of having committed theft in this country, and later he fled from justice in the city of Perm. He complained about the unlawfulness of the detention pending extradition, as well as that his complaints about the detention order were not immediately examined.
On January 10, 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 5 § 1 (f) and Article 5 (4) of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person), and ordered the State - the respondent to pay the applicant 7,500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling dated January 10, 2017 in the case of Novoselov (Russian Federation) (аpplication N 44882/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1092-novoselov-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint against the refusal of state bodies to pay compensation for unlawful criminal prosecution. The case has violated the requirements of paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2004, complainants were assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaint, the applicants (three people) living in the city of Taganrog complained about the refusal of the domestic authorities to pay them compensation for the criminal prosecution, which they considered illegal, which led to a violation in their case of the presumption of innocence and their right to receive compensation in case of a judicial error.
On January 10, 2017, on the complaint filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) by not violating Article 3 of the Convention N 7 compensation in the event of a judicial error), and ordered the respondent State to pay each applicant 5,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling dated January 10, 2017 in the case of Trufanov and Others v. Russia (аpplication No. 18130/04).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1093-trufanov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint of ill-treatment by employees of the internal affairs body, the lack of an effective investigation of this circumstance. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2007 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 lives in Kiev, complained of ill-treatment by the police officers of the city of Omsk and the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment while in the police.
On 10 January 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) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 1,250 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling dated January 10, 2017 in the case of Laveykin v. Russian Federation (аpplication N 10727/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1094-laveykin-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the failure of the Russian Federation authorities to comply with the court decision, which determined that the applicant's son should live with her. The case has violated the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2014, complainants were assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In her complaint, the applicant, residing in the city of Grozny, complained that the Russian authorities had failed to comply with the decision of the court, which determined that her son should live with her.
On 20 December 2016, 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 12,500 euros as compensation moral harm.
ECHR Ordinance of December 20, 2016 on the case of Yusupova v. Russia (Yusupova v. Russia) "(аpplication No. 66157/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1095-yusupova-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered complaints about the confiscation of money belonging to the applicants by customs officers. The case has violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2004 and 2006, 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 confiscation of their money by customs officers.
On 20 December 2016, on complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to property protection) and ordered the respondent state to pay each of the applicants 500 euros as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and as compensation for pecuniary damage to the first applicant - 3,605 euros, to the applicant - 2,010 euros and to the second applicant - 2,010 euros.
Resolution of the ECHR of December 20, 2016 in the case of Lyubimov and Others v. Russia (Lyubimov and Others v. Russia) (аpplications N 26374/04 and 46993/06).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1096-lyubimov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint of inhuman conditions of detention, conditions of transfer to and from the court, as well as illegal tapping of telephone conversations. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3 and 8 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, who was serving a sentence in the city of Samara, complained about the inhuman conditions of detention, conditions of transfer to and from the court, as well as illegal tapping of his telephone conversations.
On 20 December 2016, on a complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 8 of the Convention (the right to respect for private and family life), and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicant EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage. In connection with the transfer to the court and from the court, but not in connection with the conditions of the applicant.
Resolution of the ECHR dated December 20, 2016 in the case of "Rajab Magomedov v. Russia (Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia)" (аpplication No. 20933/08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1097-radzhab-magomedov-c-russia .
The case has successfully considered a complaint of collective expulsion from Russia, unreasonable restrictions on the possibility of leaving the territory of the Russian Federation, inhuman treatment, and discriminatory treatment. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2, 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
In 2007, complainants were assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaint, the applicants, citizens of Georgia (mother and four children), complained about their collective expulsion from Russia, unreasonable restriction of their ability to leave the territory of the Russian Federation, inhuman treatment due to the conditions of a two-week stay in the city of Derbent, which they could not leave, also to discriminatory treatment. At the time of the events in question, the applicant was eight months pregnant, and her children were respectively 11, nine, six years and two years.
On December 20, 2016, on the complaint 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 remedy), as well as the requirements of article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (freedom of movement). The European Court, by six votes to one, ruled that the Russian authorities violated the requirements of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (prohibiting the collective expulsion of foreigners), and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicant 30,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The European Court ruled that there was no need to consider a complaint of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination).
The dissenting opinion on the present case was expressed by judge Dmitry Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation).
ECHR ruling of December 20, 2016 on the case of Shioshvili and Others v. Russia (Shioshvili and Others v. Russia) (аpplication No. 19356/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1098-shioshvili-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the failure to provide adequate medical care during detention and transfer, the absence of a proper investigation into the circumstances of death. The case was a violation of the requirements of Article 2, 3, 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2007 the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In her complaint, the applicant, a citizen of Georgia, argued that the authorities of the Russian Federation were responsible for the death of her husband due to the failure to provide him with adequate medical assistance while in detention in the city of St. Petersburg and while being transferred to the city of Moscow. She also complained about the lack of a proper investigation into the circumstances of his death.
On 20 December 2016, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in the present case the authorities violated the substantive and procedural requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (the right to life), as well as the requirements of Articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 of the Convention (right effective remedy), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 40,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The European Court ruled that there was no need to examine the applicants' complaint of violation of the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention.
ECHR ruling of December 20, 2016 on the case of Dzidzava v. Russia (Dzidzava v. Russia) (аpplication N 16363/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1099-dzidzava-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered complaints about unreasonably long detention. The case of violation of the requirements of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2012 and 2014, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints the applicants complained about the excessive length of their detention. The fourth applicant also appealed the excessive length of the procedure for appealing against the detention decision.
On December 20, 2016 on the complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities violated the requirements of paragraph 3 (for all applicants) and 4 (for the fourth applicant), Article 5 of the Convention (the right to liberty and inviolability), and ordered the respondent Government to pay the applicants EUR 12,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR judgment of December 20, 2016 in the case of Kalacheva and Others v. Russia (Kalacheva and Others v. Russia) (аpplications No. 16058/12, 57607/12, 34075/14, 62799/14 and 77796/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1100-kalacheva-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the lack of proper medical care while in the detention facility and the correctional colony. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2015, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant, who had been detained in a penal colony before his death, complained about the lack of adequate medical assistance during his detention in the remand prison and the correctional colony.
On December 13, 2016, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy), and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicant's sister 15 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant died after filing a complaint with the European Court. The applicant's complaint was supported by his sister.
Resolution of the ECHR of December 13, 2016 in the case of Pashkevich v. The Russian Federation (Pashkevich v. Russia) (аpplication No. 8741/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1101-pashkevich-c-russia .