Новости от 14 октября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the conditions of detention in the detention facility, the excessive length of the procedure for appealing the decision on remand in custody. The case has violated the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 5, Article 13 in conjunction with 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 applicant, who lives in Moscow, complained about the conditions of his detention in the remand prison, the excessive length of the procedure for appealing against the decision to remand him in custody, and that his detention was unreasonable. He also claimed that there were no effective legal remedies in relation to his complaint about the conditions of detention.
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 Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person) and Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy ) in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 1,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The European Court, taking into account the unilateral declaration of the authorities of the Russian Federation, excluded complaints of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention from the list of cases under its consideration.
Resolution of the ECHR of December 13, 2016 in the case of Shagabutdinov v. Russia (Shagabutdinov v. Russia) (аpplication N 51389/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1102-shagabutdinov-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the excessive length of the applicant's detention in custody, procedural violations during the judicial review of his complaints about the legality of the decisions on remand in custody. 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 2008, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant, who lived before his arrest in the Rostov Region, complained about the excessive length of his detention, as well as procedural violations during the judicial review of his complaints about the legality of the decisions on remand in custody.
On December 13, 2016, on the complaint submitted by the applicant, the European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 and 4 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person). The European Court ruled that there was a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of one of the two court hearings. The claimant did not submit claims for fair compensation.
ECHR ruling of December 13, 2016 in the case of Nazarov v. Russia (Nazarov v. Russia) (аpplication No. 17614/08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1103-nazarov-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the illegal detention of the applicant. The case has violated the requirements of Article 5 § 1 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 applicant, who lives in the city of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, complained about the illegality of his detention.
On December 13, 2016, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously decided that in this 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 him 7,500 euros as compensation moral harm.
ECHR ruling of December 13, 2016 in the case of Boychuk v. Russia (Boychuk v. Russia) (аpplication. No. 11214/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1104-boychuk-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the length of the applicant's detention in custody, the excessive length of the procedure for appealing against the decision on remand, and the length of the proceedings that did not meet the requirements of reasonableness. The case has violated the requirements of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 and paragraph 1 of Article 6 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, who lived before his arrest in Vladivostok, complained about the lengthy detention, the excessive length of the appeals procedure, and the length of the proceedings that did not meet the requirements of reasonableness.
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 paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 (right to liberty and security of person) and Article 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a fair trial) , and ordered the respondent state to pay him 3,100 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling of December 13, 2016 on the case of Snyatovsky v. Russia (Snyatovskiy v. Russia) (аpplication No. 10341/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1105-snyatovskiy-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined complaints about conditions of detention, excessively long detention and lack of effective remedies. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3, clause 3 of Article 5, Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints the applicants (eight people) complained about the conditions of their detention. Some of the applicants also appealed against the excessively long detention and the lack of effective remedies.
On December 8, 2016 on the complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in the present case the authorities of the Russian Federation violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in relation to all applicants, paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) the first and seventh applicants, as well as Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy) in respect of the seventh applicant, and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 102,000 in compensation moral harm.
ECHR judgment of December 8, 2016 on the case of Kolbasov and Others v. Russia (Kolbasov and Others v. Russia) (аpplications N 37198/09, 27269/10, 29657/10, 35655/11, 46902/11, 63660 / 12, 14181/15 and 39024/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1106-kolbasov-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the lack of proper dental care in the detention facility and correctional colonies. The case has violated the requirements of Articles 3, 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2014, the complainant was assisted in preparing a аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant, who is serving a sentence in the Tomsk Region, complained about the lack of adequate dental care in the detention facility and correctional facilities.
On December 6, 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 15,000 Euro in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
ECHR ruling of December 6, 2016 on the case of Dmitriev v. Russia (Dmitriyev v. Russia) (аpplication N 66231/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1107-dmitriyev-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint against the ban on leaving the country. The case has violated the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2014, 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 Moscow, appealed against the ban on leaving the country, applied to him by a bailiff.
On December 6, 2016, on the complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (freedom of movement), and ordered the respondent state to pay the applicant 1,000 euros in compensation for moral damage.
Resolution of the ECHR of December 6, 2016 in the case of Cherepanov v. Russia (Cherepanov v. Russia) (Complaint аpplication No. 43614/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1108-cherepanov-c-russia .
The case has successfully reviewed complaints about the annulment of property rights in respect of rooms in a dormitory in court. 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 2008, complainants were assisted in preparing аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (21 people) complained about the annulment in court of their property rights in relation to their rooms in the Samara dormitory.
On December 1, 2016 on the 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 protection of property), and ordered the respondent state to restore the applicants' right to the rooms and pay they are 5,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The European Court ruled that a single complaint was not ready to resolve the issue of material damage, and invited the parties to submit their comments on the matter.
Resolution of the ECHR of December 01, 2016 in the case of Tomina and Others v. Russia (Tomina and Others v. Russia) "(аpplications N 20578/08, 21159/08, 22903/08, 24519/08, 24728/08, 25084 / 08, 25558/08, 25559/08, 27555/08, 27568/08, 28031/08, 30511/08, 31038/08, 45120/08, 45124/08, 45131/08, 45133/08, 45141/08, 45167/08 and 45173/08).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1109-tomina-and-others-c-russia .
The case was successfully considered a complaint about the inhuman conditions of detention in the detention facility. The case has violated the requirements of Article 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 applicant complained about the inhuman conditions in the remand prison.
On November 24, 2016, following a complaint filed by the applicant, the European Court, taking into account the unilateral declaration of the authorities of the Russian Federation, unanimously decided to exclude the complaint of violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) from the list of cases to be considered. The European Court also unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities of the Russian Federation violated the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective remedy). The Government undertook to pay the applicant EUR 16,875.
Resolution of the European Court of Human Rights dated November 24, 2016 in the case of Mumzhiyev v. Russia (аpplication No. 752/15).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1110-mumzhiyev-c-russia .
The case has successfully examined complaints about the excessive length of detention, as well as the fact that the examination of the complaint regarding detention did not meet the urgency requirement. 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 2010, 2013 and 2014, 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 their detention. The first applicant also complained that the examination of his detention complaint did not comply with the urgency requirement.
On November 24, 2016 on the complaints filed by the applicants, the European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 and 4 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person), and ordered the respondent Government to pay the applicants 7,000, respectively 1 300 and 4 500 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and court costs.
ECHR judgment of November 24, 2016 in the case of Solovyev and Others v. Russia (Solovyev and Others v. Russia) (аpplications N 68433/10, 55250/13 and 44979/14).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/1111-solovyev-and-others-c-russia .