The ECHR found a violation of Article 3, paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as a violation of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free

Заголовок: The ECHR found a violation of Article 3, paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Hu Сведения: 2018-08-06 09:10:42

The ECHR judgment of 30 January 2018 in the case of Stepan Zimin v. Russia (applications N 63686/13 and 60894/14).

In the case, the applicant's complaints that his pre-trial detention was unfounded, as well as the fact that the conditions for transfer to and from the court, as well as the content in the glass booth in the court session violated his rights. The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. There has been a violation of Article 3, paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court also held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In 2013 and 2014, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, the applications were merged and communicated to the Russian Federation.

In his complaints, the applicant, who participated in the demonstration on 6 May 2012, complained that his preliminary detention was unfounded, and that the conditions for transfer to and from the court, as well as the content in the glass booth in the court session violated his rights. The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

On 30 January 2018, on the complaints lodged by the applicant, the Court unanimously held that in this case the Government violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security of person). The Court also held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly and association) and ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant EUR 12,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. A special opinion was expressed by Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation).

 

Добавить комментарий

Защитный код
Обновить

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