European Court of Human Rights Ruling of the Week

Week-ending 2 April 2021

This week there were three rulings by the European Court of Human Rights with regard to Russia finding violations of Article 2 (right to life), Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and issued a ruling under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments).

GASANGUSENOV v. RUSSIA, 30 March 2021

Art 2 (substantive) • Positive obligations • Killing of applicant’s two sons during special operation carried out by State agents • Use of lethal force not absolutely necessary

Art. 2 (procedural) • Authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the serious allegations of inappropriate use of lethal force by State agents

Art 46 • Execution of judgment • Individual measures • Pending criminal investigation to elucidate main circumstances of the use of lethal force by the State agents, evaluate their actions and secure next-of-kin access to key documents

A substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention; a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention; no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 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 120,000, 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; the Government must take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure in the present case that the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the Convention are complied with.

OORZHAK v. RUSSIA, 30 March 2021

Art 6 (civil) – Infringement of the right of access to a court when the appeal in cassation is dismissed without examination of the merits regarding failure to comply with a requirement dictated by law – Absence of a legitimate aim pursued by the contested measure – Good faith on the part of the applicant who gave all the information needed to understand the nature of his appeal

A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; the respondent State shall pay to the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes 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: (i) EUR 1,000, plus any amount that may be due on that sum by way of tax, for non-material damage; (ii)           EUR 1,000, plus any amount that may be due on this sum by the claimant as tax, for costs and expenses.

Translated from the French by Rights in Russia

THOMPSON v. RUSSIA, 30 March 2021

Art 8 • Failure of domestic courts to comply with positive obligations to secure respect for family life through inadequate interpretation and application of Hague Convention, leading to refusal of father’s request to return son after wrongful and arbitrary removal from Spain

A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the first 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 16,250, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;(ii)  EUR 2,260, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the first applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.