Week-ending 18 September 2020
Case of Belova v. Russia, 15 September 2020
Art 1 P1 • Respect for property • Public property recovered by State years after purchase by applicant following unauthorised sale to intermediate acquirers • Acquirer’s duty to investigate origin of property to avoid possible confiscation claims • Good faith thus not acknowledged • Applicant not deprived of seeking compensation from those responsible for her loss • Significant public interests in issue not outweighed by private ones
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Lack of notification of appeal hearing
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The respondent State is to pay the applicant EUR 5,200 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, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
In other news concerning the European Court of Human Rights this week:
Thursday, 17 September 2020, Caucasian Knot reported: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is considering special security measures for Movsar Umarov, a resident of Chechnya, whose escape during a special operation was announced by law enforcers, the “Committee against Torture” (CaT) has reported. The “Caucasian Knot” has reported that Eset, the mother of Movsar Umarov, a resident of Grozny, stated that her son was detained for watching the video blog run by Tumso Abdurakhmanov, a popular critic of Chechen authorities. According to Eset Umarova, she learned through unofficial channels that law enforcers had tried, by threats of lengthy imprisonment, to force him to help them in catching militants. Then, the woman, as she said, was told that her son had fled. She suggested that Movsar had fallen victim to an extrajudicial execution. The ECtHR has notified CaT’s lawyers that it is considering the possibility of applying Rule 39 to ensure Movsar Umarov’s safety. Besides, the ECtHR asked the Russian government for information about the reasons why Umarov had got under control of Chechen law enforcers, says the today’s post on the CaT’s website.
Wednesday, 16 September 2020, RAPSI reported: The Supreme Court’s Presidium on 16 September refused to reconsider sentence against Russian opposition activists Sergey Udaltsov and Leonid Razvozzhayev in the 2012 Bolotnaya Square riot case basing on the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), RAPSI reported from the courtroom. The highest instance thus upheld the Moscow City Court’s ruling against the opposition activists. Udaltsov and Razvozzhayev asked the Supreme Court to overturn their sentence in the 2012 Bolotnaya Square riot case based on the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). According to lawyer Dmitry Agranovsky, the ECtHR has held that Russia had violated Part 1 of the Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights (Right to a fair trial) by convicting the opposition activists based on the testimony of another defendant Konstantin Lebedev, who had signed a plea deal with investigators.