Week-ending 5 March 2021
This week there were four judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to Russia, two of which found violations of Article 6 of the European Convention (fair trial).
GASTRONOM v. RUSSIA, 2 March 2021
Dismisses the claim for just satisfaction in the part concerning material damage.
Translation from the French by Rights in Russia
KOLESNIKOVA c. RUSSIE, 2 March 2021
Art 6 § 1 (criminal) – Impartial court – Rejection of a request for non-abusive challenge of all the judges of a court having decided themselves on the challenge directed against them – Court of cassation not having remedied the deficiencies at issue.
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the district court; the respondent State shall pay to the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment has become final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1 500, plus any amount which may be payable from that sum by the person concerned by way of tax for costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement.
Translation from the French by Rights in Russia
PAVEL SHISHKOV v. RUSSIA, 2 March 2021
Art 8 • Family life • Positive Obligations • Authorities’ refusal to order the applicant’s daughter’s transfer to his care following removal of mother’s parental authority • Applicant’s own inaction leading to severance of ties • Child well-integrated into foster family, vulnerable due to young age and previous traumatising experience • Reunion of child with parent with whom he has not lived for some time may not be possible immediately and may require preparatory measures • Applicant with parental authority and rights who could seek his daughter’s transfer to his care as circumstances evolved • Fair and adversarial decision-making process affording requisite protection to applicant’s rights • Authorities’ refusal in the child’s best interests, within their margin of appreciation and based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons
No violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Translation from the French by Rights in Russia
VORONKOV c. RUSSIE (No 2), 2 March 2021
Art 6 § 1 (civil) – Access to a court – Impossibility for the claimant to assert his rights because of the extinctive prescription resulting from a contradictory application of the rules of jurisdiction ratione loci, for which he was in no way responsible.
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Translation from the French by Rights in Russia
