The ECHR has found a violation of the requirements of Article 3, Article 5, paragraph 3, and Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in respect of both applicants, paragraph 1 and subparagraphs

Заголовок: The ECHR has found a violation of the requirements of Article 3, Article 5, paragraph 3, and Article 6, para Сведения: 2020-05-10 04:47:12

The ECHR judgment of November 19, 2019 in the case of Razvozzhayev v. The Russian Federation and Ukraine and Udaltsov v. The Russian Federation (applications N 75734/12 and two other applications).

In 2012, the applicants were assisted in preparing applications. Subsequently, the applications were consolidated and communicated by the Russian Federation.

The case has successfully examined applications about the lack of grounds for a preliminary detention of the applicants and a fair trial, violation of the rights to freedom of assembly, the right to family life, the unlawfulness of the seizure of property, and the lack of an effective investigation into the allegations. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3, paragraph 3 of Article 5 and paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in respect of both applicants, paragraph 1 and subparagraphs “b”, “c” of paragraph 3 of Article 6 and Article 8 of the Convention ( in respect of the first applicant), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, Article 11 of the Convention (in respect of the second applicant).

In his application, the first applicant alleged, in particular, that the authorities of the Russian Federation and Ukraine had not conducted an effective investigation into his allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty and inhuman or degrading treatment.

Also in their applications in respect of the Russian Federation, the applicants complained about insufficient grounds for their pre-trial detention, that their case had not been fair, that their right to freedom of assembly, the first applicant's right to family life, and that the arrest had been violated The second applicant's property was unlawful.

The European Court unanimously ruled that in this case the authorities of the Russian Federation and Ukraine violated the requirements of Articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 5 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person), the Russian authorities also violated the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, Article 6 § 1 Convention (right to a fair trial) in respect of both applicants.

As regards the first applicant, there has been a violation of paragraph 1 and sub-paragraphs “b” and “c” of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention, as well as a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life).

As regards the second applicant, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to protection of property), Article 11 of the Convention (right to freedom of assembly and association).

On November 19, 2019, according to the applications submitted by the applicants, the European Court ordered the Government of Ukraine and the Russian Federation to pay the first applicant EUR 4,800 and EUR 11,000, respectively, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court ordered the second applicant to be paid EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Concurring dissenting opinion was expressed by Judge H. Keller (elected from Switzerland).

Judge P.P. expressed a partially dissenting opinion. de Albuquerque (elected from Portugal).

The joint partially coinciding and partially dissenting opinion was expressed by judges P. Lemmens (elected from Belgium), A. Yudkovskaya (elected from Ukraine) and H. Keller.

Joint concurring opinion was expressed by judges P. Lemmens, A. Yudkovskaya and P.P. de Albuquerque.

 

 

Добавить комментарий

Защитный код
Обновить

© 2011-2018 Юридическая помощь в составлении жалоб в Европейский суд по правам человека. Юрист (представитель) ЕСПЧ.