Week-ending 22 January 2021
This week the European Court of Human Rights published 13 judgments with respect to Russia. Of these the most high profile was that of Georgia v Russia (II), published on 21 January 2021, in which the Court ruled the Russian government was responsible for the murder of Georgian civilians and the looting and burning of their homes during the 2008 war between Russian and Georgia. The Court found that Russia was involved in the violation of human rights in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but was not responsible for the hostilities in August 2008. The 13 judgments taken altogether conern violations of the following Convention articles: 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 38 (examination of the case).
KRAMARENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 19 January 2021
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of the first and fourth applicants; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in respect of all applicants; a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of all applicants; the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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: the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 132, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses, paid to the first applicant’s bank account; EUR 3,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses, paid to the first applicant’s representative’s bank account.
KURKIN v. RUSSIA, 19 January 2021
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb; a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 33,800, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
SHLYKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 19 January 2021
Art 3 • Degrading treatment • Insufficient justification for prolonged systematic handcuffing of life prisoners without regular and individualised review of specific security concerns
Art 3 • Degrading treatment • Cumulative factors of isolation and limited outdoor exercise during life imprisonment • Possible risk of institutionalisation syndrome
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Applicants’ inability to attend hearings in civil proceedings which they instituted to challenge systematic handcuffing
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of each of the applicants on account of their routine handcuffing; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of applicant in application no. 78638/11 on account of the conditions of the prison regime; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of applicants in applications nos. 11402/17 and 82420/17; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in application no. 6086/14; 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.
TASHUYEV v. RUSSIA, 19 January 2021
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the decision of 25 April 2016; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken together with Article 8, on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the decision of 25 April 2016; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 2,000, in respect of costs and expenses plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on the above amount.
TIMOFEYEV AND POSTUPKIN V. RUSSIE, 19 January 2021 [NB Translation from French original by RiR]
Art 7 and Art 4 P7 – Administrative supervision for preventive purposes, after the execution of the sentence by convicted persons, not constituting a punishment and not subject to the principle of retroactivity – Measures not amounting to “punishing criminally” a second time
Art 6 § 1 (civil) – Fair trial – Failure to grant free legal aid to a claimant without money to obtain the assistance of a lawyer during a procedure of placement under administrative supervision for eight years – Considerable seriousness of what is at stake in the procedure – Inability to effectively defend his case – Clear disadvantage in relation to his assisted opponent.
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 – Freedom of movement – Proportionality of administrative supervision measures, imposed for six years and subject to periodic review of their necessity – Sufficiently foreseeable law as to the category of persons concerned and its temporal scope
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant (application no. 45431/14); the respondent State shall pay, within three months of the date on which the judgment has become final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following sums, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement: EUR 4 000, plus any amount which may be due from those sums by way of tax, to the first applicant for non-pecuniary damage; EUR 4,000 to the first claimant, plus any amount that may be due from him on account of tax, costs and expenses, to be paid into the bank account of his representative, Mr. K.N. Koroteev.
BOKHONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 21 January 2021
A violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table.
ESTRINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 21 January 2021
A violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table.
GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II), 21 January 2021
Art 1 • Jurisdiction of Russia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia • Jurisdiction not established during the active phase of hostilities • Jurisdiction established after their cessation • “Effective control”
Art 2 • Art 3 • Art 8 • Art 1 P1 • Administrative practice as regards the killing of civilians and the torching and looting of houses in Georgian villages in South Ossetia and in the “buffer zone”
Art 3 • Inhuman and degrading treatment • Art 5 • Administrative practice as regards the conditions of detention of Georgian civilians and the humiliating acts to which they were exposed • Administrative practice as regards their arbitrary detention
Art 3 • Administrative practice as regards the acts of torture of which the Georgian prisoners of war were victims
Art 2 P4 • Administrative practice as regards the inability of Georgian nationals to return to their respective homes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia
Art 2 P1 • Alleged looting and destruction of public schools and libraries and intimidation of ethnic Georgian pupils and teachers • Insufficient evidence
Art 2 (procedural) • Procedural obligation to carry out an adequate and effective investigation not only into the events that occurred after the cessation of hostilities but also into the events that occurred during the active phase of the hostilities • Investigations carried out by the Russian authorities neither prompt nor effective nor independent
Art 38 • Russian Government’s failure to comply with obligation to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court
The Court ruled that the events which occurred after the cessation of hostilities (from the date of the ceasefire agreement of 12 August 2008) fell within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, and dismisses the preliminary objection raised by the respondent Government in that regard; there was an administrative practice contrary to Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the killing of civilians and the torching and looting of houses in Georgian villages in South Ossetia and in the “buffer zone”, and dismisses the preliminary objection of non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the respondent Government in that regard; that the Georgian civilians detained by the South Ossetian forces in the basement of the “Ministry of Internal Affairs of South Ossetia” in Tskhinvali between approximately 10 and 27 August 2008 fell within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, and dismisses the preliminary objection raised by the respondent Government in that regard; that there was an administrative practice contrary to Article 3 of the Convention as regards the conditions of detention of some 160 Georgian civilians and the humiliating acts to which they were exposed, which caused them undeniable suffering and must be regarded as inhuman and degrading treatment, and dismisses the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the respondent Government in that regard; that there was an administrative practice contrary to Article 5 of the Convention as regards the arbitrary detention of Georgian civilians in August 2008, and dismisses the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the respondent Government in that regard; that the Georgian prisoners of war who were detained in Tskhinvali between 8 and 17 August 2008 by the South Ossetian forces fell within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, and dismisses the preliminary objection raised by the respondent Government in that regard; that there was an administrative practice contrary to Article 3 of the Convention as regards the acts of torture of which the Georgian prisoners of war were victims, and dismisses the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the respondent Government in that regard; that the Georgian nationals who were prevented from returning to South Ossetia or Abkhazia fell within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, and dismisses the preliminary objection raised by the respondent Government in that regard; that there was an administrative practice contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 as regards the inability of Georgian nationals to return to their respective homes, and dismisses the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the respondent Government in that regard; that the Russian Federation had a procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an adequate and effective investigation not only into the events which occurred after the cessation of hostilities (from the date of the ceasefire agreement of 12 August 2008) but also into the events which occurred during the active phase of the hostilities (8 to 12 August 2008), and dismisses the preliminary objection raised by the respondent Government in that regard; Holds, by sixteen votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect; that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention; that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention is not ready for decision; reserves the said question in whole; invites the applicant Government and the respondent Government to submit in writing, within twelve months from the date of notification of this judgment, their observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach; reserves the further procedure and delegates to the President of the Court the power to fix the same if need be.
PODKORYTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 21 January 2021
A violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table.
SAIDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 21 January 2021
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds that 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.
SHIGALEV v. RUSSIA, 21 January 2021
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table.
SOROKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 21 January 2021
A violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table.
TIMCHENKO AND SHESTUN v. RUSSIA, 21 January 2021
A violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table.
Additional sources:
The Guardian, 21 January 2021: Russia committed a series of human rights violations during its war with Georgia in 2008, the European court of human rights ruled on Thursday, saying Moscow was responsible for the murder of Georgian civilians, and the looting and burning of their homes. In a landmark judgment, the court said the Kremlin was guilty of unlawfully rounding up ethnic Georgians and their subsequent “inhuman and degrading treatment”. This included the torture of Georgian prisoners of war and the expulsion of Georgian villagers from their homes in South Ossetia. The ruling comes 13 years after a bitter five-day August conflict between Russian forces and Georgian troops. The then Georgian government of Mikheil Saakashvili launched a doomed attempt to wrest back control of the Russian-backed breakaway territory of South Ossetia.
Caucasian Knot, 21 January 2021: In its today’s judgment in the case of Georgia v. Russia (II), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recognized that Russia was involved in the violation of human rights in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but was not responsible for the hostilities in August 2008. According to the ECtHR, in the period from August 12 to October 10, 2008, the Russian Federation exercised “effective control” over South Ossetia and Abkhazia and officially brought its troops there. “After that period, the strong Russian presence and the South-Ossetian and Abkhazian authorities’ dependency on the Russian Federation indicated that there had been continued ‘effective control’ over South Ossetia and Abkhazia,” the Strasbourg Court concluded. “The Court therefore concluded that the events occurring after the cessation of hostilities had fallen within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. It found a number of violations of the Convention,” reads the press release posted on the ECtHR’s website today. The ECtHR’s judgment in the inter-State case of Georgia v. Russia (II) contains no decision regarding any monetary compensation. The Strasbourg Court left the relevant issue for further consideration.
