Week-ending 17 December 2021
This week the European Court of Human Rights handed down eleven rulings with regard to Russia finding violations of Convention Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 5 (liberty and security of person), 6 (fair trial), 8 (respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Particular attention was attracted by the case of TUNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA concerning domestic violence that found Russia had failed to take adequate measures to protect victims of domestic violence and conduct an effective investigations due to a discriminatory domestic legal framework that lacks a definition of ‘domestic violence’ and adequate substantive and procedural provisions to prosecute its various forms, including at a systemic level. The judgment provided ‘detailed general measures comprising all areas of State action to address comprehensively structural and discriminatory lack of protection of women against domestic violence.’
Media sources:
Meduza, 14 December 2021: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Russia is to pay compensation to several domestic violence victims over the authorities’ failure to respond to their cases. One of the applicants, Margarita Gracheva, whose ex-husband was sentenced to fourteen years in prison for cutting off her hands in 2017, was awarded more than $400,000 in compensation.
The Moscow Times, 17 December 2021: Russia’s laws adequately protect victims of domestic violence, the Kremlin said Thursday, a day after Europe’s top rights court ordered Russia to pay damages to four victims for failing to properly investigate their abuse cases. President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov defended the status quo after one of the high-profile victims expressed hope that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling would prompt Russia to push through legislative changes. Peskov’s comments also contradict a Russian Constitutional Court ruling in April that ordered stronger laws to punish repeat domestic violence offenders.
RFE/RL, 15 December 2021: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ordered Russia to pay compensation to four victims of domestic violence, including Margarita Grachyova, whose husband used an ax to cut off her hands four years ago.
The Judgments
14 December 2021
A violation of the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 of the Convention on account of disappearance and the failure to investigate it effectively, of Messrs Z.Dh., A.A., M. Sh., M.S. and R.L.; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants; a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Messrs Z.Dh., A.A., M. Sh., M.S. and R.L.; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the Appendix in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable; in respect of costs and expenses EUR 8,474 (eight thousand four hundred and seventy‑four euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid into the account of the applicants’ representatives as indicated by the applicants.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
A violation of Article 10 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 9, in applications nos. 37508/12 and 61695/13; a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 9, in application no. 16761/14, on account of dissolution of the Church of Scientology Moscow; the respondent State is to pay to the applicants jointly, within three months, the following amounts: (i) EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses.
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in that all applicants were subjected to torture in police custody, and that no effective investigation into their complaints was carried out by the authorities; a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Idrisov (no. 19498/11), Mr Khavash Magomadov and Mr Bislan Magomadov (no. 2309/13), Mr Edilbiyev (no. 62835/13) and Mr Chibiyev (no. 70960/14) and Mr Edigov (no. 17972/15); a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Idrisov (no. 19498/11), Mr Khavash Magomadov and Mr Bislan Magomadov (no. 2309/13), Mr Magomedov (no. 8414/13), Mr Edilbiyev (no. 62835/13), Mr Ektumayev (no. 65036/14), Mr Madayev (no. 66406/14), Mr Edigov (no. 17972/15) and Mr Shakhruyev (no. 42330/18); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
MUKHAMETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Art 8 • Family life • Lack of safeguards against abuse in domestic law concerning investigators’ decisions on petitions for prisoner family visits
Art 5 § 3 • Excessive length of pre-trial detention amounting to over one and a half years
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of each applicant; a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of Mr Mukhametov; the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the amounts indicated in Appendix II, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Unjustified conviction and sentencing of newspaper editor, as well as termination of newspaper’s media-outlet status, under anti-extremism laws
A violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s criminal conviction; a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the termination of the newspaper’s media-outlet status; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts: (i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (ii) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.
NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
A violation of Article 10 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
Art 8 • Private life • Home • Non-consensual disclosure of applicant’s private data by a nationwide television-show reporting on the ongoing criminal proceedings against her husband, a retired prosecutor • Justified dismissal of claim about disclosure of applicant’s declared income data • A bona fide journalistic investigation into a prima facie disparity between an official’s assets or lifestyle and declared income • Prejudice to applicant’s enjoyment of the right to respect for her reputation limited and not extending beyond mere association as a spouse • Unjustified dismissal of claim about disclosure of applicant’s address, tax ID number and house interior images
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Civil courts’ failure to adequately examine aspects of applicant’s privacy invasion claims
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in relation to the showing of the applicant’s exact residential address, her taxpayer identification number and the images of the interior of the country house; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.
A violation of Article 6 of the Convention; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
TROITSKAYA-MIRKOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
A violation of Article 6 of the Convention in all of the present applications; holds (a) that in respect of costs and expenses paid by Ms Sablina (app. no. 4726/14) and in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by all the applicants the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
TSENTR PROSVETITELNYKH I ISSLEDOVATELSKIKH PROGRAMM v. RUSSIA
A violation of Article 11 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 2,560 (two thousand five hundred and sixty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; (iii) EUR 1,440 (one thousand four hundred and forty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the bank account of the applicant’s representative Mr D.G. Bartenev.
Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Positive obligations • Failure to take adequate measures to protect victims of domestic violence and conduct an effective investigation due to continuing structural problem • Domestic legal framework lacking a definition of “domestic violence”, adequate substantive and procedural provisions to prosecute its various forms, and any form of protection orders • Deficient legal framework preventing authorities from taking a comprehensive view of a continuum of violence and dealing with it at a systemic level
Art 14 (+ Art 3) • Discriminatory effects on women of continued failure to adopt legislation to combat domestic violence and provide any protective measures
Art 46 • Pilot judgment • Detailed general measures indicated by the Court comprising all areas of State action to address comprehensively structural and discriminatory lack of protection of women against domestic violence
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs; a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3; the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 330,660 (three hundred and thirty thousand six hundred and sixty euros) to Ms Gracheva, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) each to Ms Tunikova, Ms Gershman and Ms Petrakova, and EUR 40,000 (forty thousand euros) to Ms Gracheva, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (iii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses.
