Week-ending 23 April 2021
This week there were three rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to Russia, finding violations of Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (private and family life) and Article 13 (effective remedy). The Court also made recommendations under Article 46 in terms of General Measures with regard to violations of Article 6 (fair trial).
GATSALOVA v. RUSSIA, 20 April 2021
Art 8 ● Private and family life ● Unjustified refusal to return body of applicant’s deceased husband, after his participation in attack on law-enforcement authorities and subsequent death ● Art 13 (+ Art 8) ● No effective remedy
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the decision of 15 May 2006; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the decision of 15 May 2006; 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 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on the above amount, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement and to be paid into the bank account indicated by the applicant’s representatives.
KUZMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 20 April 2021
Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Police entrapment through drug test purchases, resulting from structural problems in domestic regulatory framework • Insufficient safeguards against abuse • Failure of domestic courts to fully assess applicant’s entrapment pleas
Art 46 • General measures • Further reform of regulatory framework for operational-search activities required • Need for clear and foreseeable procedure for authorising undercover operations, by a judicial body with effective safeguards
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants; 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 the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses.
NALTAKYAN v. RUSSIA, 20 April 2021
Art 8 ● Failure to secure family life of applicant-father whose son, whom he believed dead, was given up by mother at maternity ward ● Refusal by national courts to return the son to the applicant’s family, without in-depth examination and balancing of all relevant factors ● Refusal by national courts to grant applicant access to his son, based on profoundly deficient decision-making process
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the refusal to return V. to the applicant’s family; a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the refusal of contact rights.