On July 5, 2019, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee.

Заголовок: On July 5, 2019, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee. Сведения: 2024-07-08 05:03:14

Anatoly Bukas v. the Republic of Belarus. Views of the Human Rights Committee of 5 July 2019 Communication No. 2315/2013.

In 2013, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Republic of Belarus.

The author claimed that the refusal of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus to accept his complaint violated his rights under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The author drew attention to the fact that articles 335 and 341-343 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus and paragraph 16 of article 68 of the Electoral Code of the Republic of Belarus empower the Supreme Court to review decisions of the Central Election Commission. At the same time, he stated that the appeal procedure provided for by the current Electoral Code covers the refusal to register a candidate, but not the cancellation of registration.

The Committee's legal position: the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial court established by law is guaranteed, in accordance with the second sentence of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, when considering any criminal charge against persons or, as is relevant to the present communication, when determining their rights and obligations in any civil proceedings. The Committee recalls that when rights and obligations are determined in a civil proceeding, this must take place at least at one stage of the proceedings conducted by the court within the scope of the second sentence of paragraph 1 of article 14. Failure by the State party to comply with the obligation to ensure access to such a court in specific cases would constitute a violation of article 14 if such restrictions were not based on domestic law and/or were not necessary to pursue a legitimate goal such as the proper administration of justice (paragraph 6.2 of the Considerations).

The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee took note of the author's claim that by refusing to consider his complaint, which challenged the decision of the Central Election Commission [on the cancellation of the author's registration], the Supreme Court [of the Republic of Belarus] violated his right to access to the courts, provided for in article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 6.2 of the Considerations).

On August 30, 2012, the Central Election Commission rejected the author's complaint. The author appealed the decision of the District Election Commission and the decision of the Central Election Commission to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to initiate proceedings on the author's complaint, stating that the Electoral Code provides for a procedure for appealing a decision to refuse registration, but does not provide for a procedure for appealing a decision to cancel registration.

The State party has not provided written comments to clarify whether a refusal to grant access to a court within the scope of the second sentence of article 14, paragraph 1 - even if such a course of action is based on domestic law - is necessary to achieve a legitimate goal (paragraph 6.3 of the Views).

The Committee's conclusions: The State party violated the author's rights under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 7 of the Views).

 

 

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