Статьи
Новости от 09 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
In the case, the applicant successfully complained that the trial against him on charges of a criminal case was not fair, since prior to the decision of the verdict the prosecutor and the investigator gave interviews that violated the presumption of innocence. The case involved violations of paragraphs 1, 2 and subparagraph "d" of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2007, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant, the former head of the internal security service of Yukos, complained that the trial against him on charges of a criminal case was not fair, since prior to the decision of the verdict the prosecutor and the investigator gave interviews that violated the presumption of innocence. The applicant also challenged the refusal to conduct a new handwriting examination in the presence of opposing opinions of a specialist and an expert.
On 6 June 2017, on the application lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 and 6 (d) of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 7 800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The ECHR judgment of 06 June 2017 in the case of Pichugin v. The Russian Federation (аpplication no. 38958/07).
Source of publication: http://espchhelp.ru/blog/840-pichugin-c-russia .
In the case, the complaint on the failure to provide proper medical assistance to the applicant, the applicant's lack of an effective remedy was successfully considered. The case involved violation of the requirements of articles 3 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Дополнения от 08 сентября 2018 года к анализу судебной практики Европейского суда по правам человека (ЕСПЧ)
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 09.01.2018 "Дело "Ревтюк (Revtyuk) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 31796/10)
По делу обжалуется жалоба заявителя на то, что суд, вынесший постановление о заключении его под стражу, а также суды, продлявшие срок данной меры пресечения, не были беспристрастными. По делу были допущены нарушения требований пункта 4 статьи 5 Конвенции постановлением районного суда о мере пресечения, а остальные постановления о мере пресечения не нарушали пункт 4 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 07.11.2017 "Дело Ахлюстин (Akhlyustin) против Российской Федерации" (жалоба N 21200/05)
По делу обжалуется жалоба заявителя на то, что он подвергся скрытому наблюдению и что уголовное разбирательство в отношении него было несправедливым. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 8 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 07.11.2017 "Дело "Пухачев и Зарецкий (Pukhachev and Zaretskiy) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы NN 17494/16 и 20203/16)
Новости от 08 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Sentencia ECHR de 09 de enero de 2018 en el caso de López Ribalda y otros c. España (demanda núm. 1874/13).
En 2013, se ayudó a los solicitantes a preparar la demanda. Posteriormente, la demanda fue comunicada a España.
En el caso, los solicitantes se quejaron con éxito del establecimiento de un sistema oculto de videovigilancia llevado a cabo por el empleador detrás de los cajeros en la tienda, por violación de su derecho a la privacidad. En el caso hubo una violación de los requisitos del artículo 8 de la Convención para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos y las Libertades Fundamentales. El caso no violaba los requisitos del artículo 6, párrafo 1, del Convenio para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos y las Libertades Fundamentales.
CIRCUNSTANCIAS DEL CASO
Los solicitantes trabajaron como cajeros en un supermercado. Para llevar a cabo una auditoría sobre el hecho de la escasez, el empresario establecido en el sistema de vigilancia tienda incluye la cámara visible (que se informó a los solicitantes) y ocultos (que no son notificados de los solicitantes). Los solicitantes fueron despedidos después de que pudieron ver que estaban robando productos en los registros de las cámaras de video. La Corte Europea de los candidatos afirmó, entre otras cosas, que la vigilancia de vídeo oculta, establecido por su empleador, violó su derecho a la intimidad, garantizado por el artículo 8 de la Convención.
Новости от 06 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Gjykimi i GJEDNJ-së i 11 janarit 2018 në çështjen Sharhhi dhe të tjerët kundër Shqipërisë (ankimi nr. 10613/16).
Në vitin 2016, aplikantët u ndihmuan në përgatitjen e ankimi. Më pas, ankimi iu komunikua Shqipërisë.
Në rastin e sukses shqyrtuar ankesën e ankuesve në lidhje me dështimin e autoriteteve vendore për të ekzekutuar një urdhër të gjykatës për zbatimin e masave të përkohshme në formën e pezullimit të prishjen e pronës, si dhe autoritetet e dështuar për të siguruar zbatimin e vendimit të gjykatës për masat e përkohshme të sigurimit që e bëri të pamundur për shqyrtimin e duhur të meritave . Ajo kishte pasur shkelje të nenit 6 të kërkesave të pikës 1, të nenit 8, të nenit 13, konsiderohet në lidhje me Nenin 8 të Konventës, nenit 1 të Protokollit N 1 të Konventës, nenin 13 të Konventës për Mbrojtjen e të Drejtave të Njeriut dhe Lirive Themelore, konsiderohet në lidhje me nenin 1 të Protokollit N 1 të Konventës për Mbrojtjen e të Drejtave të Njeriut dhe Lirive Themelore.
Новости от 04 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The case successfully examined the complaints of the applicants for the cancellation of judgments rendered in their favor by the results of the consideration of cases in the first and appellate instances in the framework of civil proceedings, by way of supervision by higher courts because of improper application of substantive law or incorrect evaluation of evidence by lower courts. The case involved violations of the requirements 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 and 2007, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (four persons) complained about the cancellation of the judgments rendered in their favor by the results of the consideration of cases in the first and appellate instances in the framework of civil proceedings, by way of supervision by higher courts because of improper application of substantive law or incorrect evaluation of evidence by lower courts.
On June 13, 2017, on the basis of complaints filed by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirement of Article 6 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial) against all the applicants, as well as the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to protection of property) against two applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 5,500 as just satisfaction. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,500 to 5,000 euros.
Дополнения от 03 сентября 2018 года к анализу судебной практики Европейского суда по правам человека (ЕСПЧ)
Информация о Постановлении ЕСПЧ от 30.01.2018 по делу "Энвер Шахин (Enver Sahin) против Турции" (жалоба N 23065/12)
По делу обжалуется жалоба заявителя на непроведение конкретной индивидуальной оценки его потребностей как студента-инвалида относительно доступа к помещениям учебного заведения. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 14 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
Информация о Постановлении ЕСПЧ от 23.01.2018 по делу "Венгерская партия двухвостой собаки (Magyar Ketfarku Kutya Part) против Венгрии" (жалоба N 201/17)
По делу обжалуется жалоба на наложение штрафа на политическую партию за нарушение принципов справедливости выборов и тайны голосования путем предоставления избирателям возможности получить приложение к мобильным телефонам, позволяющее анонимно загружать и обмениваться фотографиями избирательных бюллетеней. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 10 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
Информация о Постановлении ЕСПЧ от 23.01.2018 по делу "Гюч (Guc) против Турции" (жалоба N 15374/11)
Новости от 03 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
In the case, the applicant successfully complained of the excessive length of pre-trial detention, the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of his detention, the lack of compensation for unlawful detention. The case involved violation of the requirements of Article 5, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In 2014, the applicant was assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the applicant complained about the excessive length of pre-trial detention, the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of his detention, the lack of compensation for unlawful detention.
On 22 June 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person), obliging the respondent State to pay the applicant 300 euros compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
Новости от 02 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The applicants successfully complained about the unreasonable length of pre-trial detention. The case involved violations of the requirements of paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (seven) complained of the unreasonable length of detention pending trial. Some applicants also complained about the length of the judicial review of the reasonableness of their detention.
On 6 July 2017, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person) against all the applicants, Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of certain and ordered the respondent State to pay applicants EUR 15,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 1,000 to 4,000 euros.
Новости от 01 сентября 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with or delay in the enforcement of judgments of the courts of the Russian Federation, which obliged state bodies to fulfill various obligations in kind in favor of the applicants. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In 2011 and 2013, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (three persons) complained of non-execution or delay in enforcing the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation, which obliged state bodies to fulfill various obligations in kind in favor of the applicants. The applicants also argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 18 July 2017, on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants EUR 9,200 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 3,200 to 6,000 euros.
Новости от 31 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
In the case, the applicants successfully complained that they had been evicted from an apartment that they had purchased from a person who did not have any rights to it. The case violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2015, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (12 persons) who were bona fide purchasers complained that they had been evicted from the apartment they had purchased from a person who did not have any rights to it, but the applicants were not aware of this during the purchase of the apartment.
On 25 July 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property) against certain applicants and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 25,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. For each complaint, applicants were awarded EUR 5,000.
Новости от 30 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The applicants successfully complained about the fact that they were evicted from the apartment. The case violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2015, the applicants were assisted in preparing the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaint, two applicants (husband and wife) who were bona fide purchasers complained that they had been evicted from the apartment that they had bought in the name of the wife from a person who did not have rights to it, but this was not known to the applicants when conclusion of the contract of sale.
On 26 September 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in the present case the Government violated the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (the right to protection of property) against the applicant and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 5,000 euro in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Новости от 29 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
In the case, the applicant's complaint for failure to comply with the judgment of the Russian Federation in her husband's favor was successfully examined. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
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 complained about non-compliance with the decision of the Russian Federation court in her husband's favor. After the death of her husband, the applicant, within the framework of domestic procedures, joined the process aimed at implementing the decision.
On 3 October 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property protection) , and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 16,300 euros as just satisfaction.
Новости от 28 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The applicants' complaints on inhuman conditions of detention were successfully considered in the case. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (seven) complained of inhuman conditions of detention. Some claimants also referred to the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard.
On 12 October 2017, on the complaints lodged by the applicants, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) against all the applicants, Article 13 of the Convention (the right to an effective domestic remedy) for certain and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicants 45,200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were awarded various amounts ranging from 5,000 to 7,300 euros.
Дополнения от 27 августа 2018 года к анализу судебной практики Европейского суда по правам человека (ЕСПЧ)
Информация о Постановлении ЕСПЧ от 30.01.2018 по делу "Компания "Секмадиенис Лтд." (Sekmadienis Ltd.) против Литвы" (жалоба N 69317/14)
По делу обжалуется жалоба на назначение коммерческой компании штрафа за распространение рекламы одежды с изображением надписей религиозного содержания. По делу допущено нарушение требований статьи 10 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
Информация о Постановлении ЕСПЧ от 30.01.2018 по делу "Этют (Etute) против Люксембурга" (жалоба N 18233/16)
По делу обжалуется жалоба заявителя на то, что с момента отмены условного освобождения он не располагал судебным средством правовой защиты, которое бы позволило ему добиться пересмотра вопроса о законности содержания его под стражей и добиться освобождения в случае признания ограничения свободы незаконным. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 4 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
Информация о Постановлении ЕСПЧ от 25.01.2018 по делу "Бикас (Bikas) против Германии" (жалоба N 76607/13)
Новости от 15 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
In the case, the applicants successfully complained about the failure to comply with the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation and the lack of effective domestic legal remedies in this regard. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 6 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
In 2013 and 2014, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of аpplications. Subsequently, the аpplications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.
In their complaints, the applicants (seven) complained of non-enforcement of the decisions of the courts of the Russian Federation, as well as the lack of effective domestic legal remedies in this regard.
Новости от 14 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Az EJEB 2016. december 13-i ítélete a Belane Nagy kontra Magyarország ügyben (53080/13 számú kérelmezői).
2013-ban a kérelmezőt segítették a panasz előkészítésében. Ezt követően a panaszt közölték Magyarországgal.
Ebben az esetben sikeresen vették figyelembe a nyugdíjjuttatások elvesztéséről szóló panaszt az újonnan bevezetett kritériumok alapján a jogok megszerzéséhez. Abban az esetben sérti a jegyzőkönyv 1. cikke N1 az Emberi jogok és alapvető szabadságok.
Az ügy körülményei
Новости от 12 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
The applicant's complaint that he had been ill-treated by law enforcement officers and the lack of an effective investigation in this regard was successfully considered in the case. The case involved violations of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
In 2006, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his complaint, the complainant, who was 16 at the time of the events in question, complained that he was ill-treated by law enforcement officials and that there was no effective investigation into this matter.
Дополнения от 11 августа 2018 года к анализу судебной практики Европейского суда по правам человека (ЕСПЧ)
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 15.12.2016 "Дело "Хлаифия и другие (Khlaifia and Others) против Италии" (жалоба N 16483/12)
По делу обжалуется жалоба заявителей, нелегально мигрировавших в другое государство, на содержание в центрах содержания нелегальных мигрантов, где они подверглись бесчеловечному и унижающему достоинство обращению, отсутствие возможности оспорить ограничение свободы, подвержение коллективной высылке, отсутствие эффективного средства правовой защиты. По делу допущено нарушение требований пункта 1 статьи 5, пунктов 2, 4 статьи 5, статьи 13 в совокупности со статьей 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод. По делу не допущено нарушений требований статьи 3 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод, статьи 4 Протокола N 4 к Конвенции, статьи 13 Конвенции в совокупности со статьей 4 Протокола N 4 к Конвенции.
Новости от 10 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Постанова ЄСПЛ від 15 грудня 2016 року по справі "Ігнатов (Ignatov) проти України" (заява N 40583/15).
У 2015 році заявнику була надана допомога в підготовці заяви. Згодом заява була і комунікувати Україні.
У справі успішно розглянута скарга заявника, що містився в попередньому ув'язненні більше двох років до того, як його переслідування було припинено за відсутністю доказів, на незаконність і тривалість тримання його під вартою, неадекватність процедур судової перевірки. У справі допущено порушення вимог пунктів 1, 3, 4 статті 5 Конвенції про захист прав людини і основних свобод.
ОБСТАВИНИ СПРАВИ
Новости от 09 августа 2018 года из блога, посвященного практике в Европейском суде по правам человека ЕСПЧ
Постановление ЕСПЧ от 09 января 2018 года по делу "Махлягин и Беляев (Makhlyagin and Belyayev) против Российской Федерации" (жалобы N 14784/09 и 51742/11).
По делу успешно рассмотрены жалобы заявителей, один из которых содержался под стражей в следственном изоляторе, а второй отбывал наказание, на то, что была нарушена конфиденциальность их переписки с Европейским Судом. По делу допущено нарушение требования статьи 34 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
В 2009 и 2011 годах заявителям была оказана помощь в подготовке жалоб. Впоследствии жалобы были объединены и коммуницированы Российской Федерации.
В своих жалобах заявители, один из которых содержался под стражей в следственном изоляторе, а второй отбывал наказание, жаловались на то, что была нарушена конфиденциальность их переписки с Европейским Судом.
