The ECHR found a violation of the requirements of Article 5 (1), Article 6 (1), and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Заголовок: The ECHR found a violation of the requirements of Article 5 (1), Article 6 (1), and Article 8 of the Convent Сведения: 2018-09-09 14:15:35

The case successfully examined a complaint about the unlawful detention and conviction of the applicants, the violation of their right to respect for family life as a result of the searches in their apartment and the establishment of restrictions on the number of visits to one of the applicants held in custody. In the case there was a violation of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 5, paragraph 1 of Article 6, Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In 2009, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the аpplication. Subsequently, the аpplication was communicated to the Russian Federation.

In their complaint, the applicants in the case are a husband and wife who worked as journalists in the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika. The applicant complained that his detention and conviction was unlawful, since the court was not independent and established by law, his conviction was also illegal because of the refusal to admit the lawyer to the trial. The applicants also complained that searches in their apartment and restrictions on the number of visits of the applicant detained were in violation of the right to respect for their family life.

On 30 May 2017, on a complaint lodged by the applicant, the Court decided, by six votes in favor and one against, that in this case the authorities of the Republic of Moldova did not violate any provisions of the Convention, and the Government violated the requirements of article 5, paragraph 1 (Right to liberty and security of person), article 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a fair trial), article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life), and obliged the Government to pay 30,000 euros to the applicant and 7,000 euros claiming as a compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

Judge D. Dedov (elected from the Russian Federation) expressed a special dissenting opinion on this case.

The ECHR judgment of 30 May 2017 in the case of Vardanean against the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation (аpplication No. 22200/10).

 

Добавить комментарий

Защитный код
Обновить

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