Week-ending 4 December 2020
This week there were eight judgments of the European Court of Human Rights regarding Russia finding violations of Article 3 (torture), Article 5 § 1 (liberty and security of person), Article 6 § 1 and Article 6 § 3 (fair trial), Article 8 (private and family life), Article 11 (assembly and association) and Article 14 (discrimination).
In other news, as reported by Meduza on Friday, 4 December 2020: Journalist and Moscow City Duma deputy Ilya Azar has filed a claim with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over the 15 days administrative arrest he was sentenced to in May for holding a single-person demonstration. According to Kommersant, Azar’s claim argues that the Russian authorities violated several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to liberty and the security of person; the right to a fair trial; respect for privacy and family life; and freedom of expression. In addition, Azar maintains that Russian law violates Article 14, which outlines protection from discrimination, said his lawyer Leonid Solovyov, from the legal aid group “Apologia Protesta.”
BERKMAN v. RUSSIA, 1 December 2020
Art 11 • Art 14 (+11) • Freedom of assembly • Discrimination • Failure to ensure that public LGBTI awareness event proceeded peacefully • Passive police conduct and failure to restrain homophobic verbal attacks and physical pressure by counter-demonstrators • Non-compliance with State’s positive obligations, which are to be assessed in light of public hostility towards LGBTI people • Negative obligations breached by preventing applicant’s participation in the event through unlawful arrest • No evidence of discriminatory nature of arrests targeting both the event participants and their opponents
Art 5 § 1 • Lawful arrest or detention • Lack of reasons and legal grounds for applicant’s arrest in respect of a suspected administrative offence
A violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s arrest; a violation of the respondent State’s positive obligations under Article 11 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14; a violation of the respondent State’s negative obligations under Article 11 of the Convention; 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, EUR 10,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
BURLAKOV v. RUSSIA, 1 December 2020
A violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts: EUR 30,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 900, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.
DANILOV v. RUSSIA, 1 December 2020
Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Impartial tribunal • Participation in trial of jurors with security clearance granted by same body investigating the applicant for disclosure of State secrets sufficient to raise doubts as to impartiality • Judge’s dismissal on purely formal grounds of applicant’s objections to the jurors in the particular case • Lack of procedural safeguards to dispel doubts as to objective impartiality
Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and 6 § 3 (d) • Fair hearing • Examination of witnesses • Failure of domestic court to carefully consider request for appearance of experts, in spite of crucial relevance of their evidence • Inability of applicant to otherwise examine experts and justified concerns as to their credibility and conclusions • Necessity of expert appearance in trial to be assessed primarily by fair hearing guarantees and applying Art6 § 3 (d) as relevant
Art 38 • Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities • State’s refusal to submit material requested by the Court
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s right to be judged by an impartial tribunal; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s right to cross-examine expert witnesses against him; 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, EUR 21,100 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
On Wednesday, 2 December 2020, RFE/RL published a piece on this case which in part reads as follows: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on December 1 ruled that Russia violated a top physicist’s right to a fair trial in a 2014 trial on treason and fraud charges. Valentin Danilov, the former director of the thermo-physics center at Krasnoyarsk State University, was arrested in 2001 on claims he transferred secret information to China and embezzled funds. In 2003, a jury acquitted Danilov of all charges, but a year later the Russian Supreme Court overturned the acquittal and sent the case back for another trial. The new jury found Danilov guilty, and he was ultimately sentenced to 13 years in prison. When he was paroled in 2012, Danilov vowed to clear his name. In his appeal to the ECHR, Danilov, now 72, argued he was not allowed to cross-examine experts whose testimony was used against him, nor present his own expert defense. He also claimed the jury was biased, since four of the 12 members had a state security clearance. “The court agreed with our arguments that it is doubtful that among the jurors who were selected by random sampling four had a security clearance,” Danilov’s lawyer, Anna Stavitskaya, told MBH Media. The ECHR sided with Danilov in his arguments, ordering Russia to pay 21,000 euros ($25,300) for having infringed on his right to a fair trial.
IVANOV v. RUSSIA, 1 December 2020
A violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 30,000, 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 non‑pecuniary damage.
KOZLOV v. RUSSIA, 1 December 2020
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in that no effective investigation was carried out into the applicant’s credible allegations of ill-treatment by the police; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in that the applicant was subjected to torture by the police; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts: EUR 30,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 481, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.
MAKHMUDOVA v. RUSSIA, 1 December 2020
Art 8 • Respect for family life • Positive obligations • Failure of Russian authorities to ensure enforcement of order of return of the applicant’s children to Estonia under the Hague Convention after removal by father • Delays in enforcement attempts • Failure to ensure preliminary measures to prepare the children and regular contact between them and the applicant pending proceedings • Children’s unwillingness to go to the applicant • Absence of effective coordination between authorities • Enforcement measures inadequate and ineffective
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 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: EUR 12,500, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 4,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.
YEVGENIY DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA, 1 December 2020
Art 8 • Respect for private life and home • Insufficient, ineffective and unduly protracted action taken to remedy noise and other nuisances emanating from police station situated under applicant’s home • Disturbance lasting several years reaching minimum level of severity for Article 8 interference • Failure to strike a fair balance between interests of the local community and effective implementation of laws, and applicant’s effective enjoyment of right to respect for private life and home
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 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, EUR 5,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA, 1 December 2020
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s deportation to Uzbekistan; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb on account of the failure to investigate the applicant’s ill-treatment during deportation; the respondent State has breached the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court and therefore it has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts: EUR 30,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 5,400, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to the applicant’s representatives Ms Trenina, Mr Zharinov and Ms Davidyan, jointly and directly, in respect of costs and expenses.
