Week-ending 9 July 2021
This week there were 13 judgments by the European Court of Human Rights concerning Russia. The judgments found violations of Convention articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 6 (fair trial), 8 (private and family life), 13 (effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
On 6 July the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of A.M. and Others v. Russia that Russia’s refusal to allow a transgender woman to visit her children following separation from her spouse violated her rights to family life and freedom from discrimination. Human Rights Watch reports that after a local court legally recognized her gender transition the person, A.M., “continued to regularly see her two children for 17 months until her former spouse obtained a court ruling to cut off visitation. The former spouse argued that any further contact with the children would harm their mental health, distort their morals and perception of family, lead to bullying at school, and violate Russia’s “gay propaganda” law.”
On this case, see also Human Rights Watch, 6 July 2021: ‘In a victory for a transgender parent’s right to maintain contact with her children, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on July 6 that Russia’s denial of her visitation violated her rights to family life and freedom from discrimination. The woman, known in court documents as A.M., had two children with her spouse before they separated. After a local court legally recognized her gender transition, A.M. continued to regularly see her children for 17 months until her former spouse obtained a court ruling to cut off visitation. The former spouse argued that any further contact with the children would harm their mental health, distort their morals and perception of family, lead to bullying at school, and violate Russia’s “gay propaganda” law.’
6 July 2021
There would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in case of the applicant’s removal to Turkmenistan; the finding that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in case of the applicant’s return to Turkmenistan constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non‑pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant; (a) that in respect of costs and expenses the respondent State is to pay directly to the applicant’s representative, within three months, EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
Art 8 • Family Life • Restriction of applicant’s parental rights and deprivation of contact with her children on gender identity grounds • Domestic courts’ failure to conduct in-depth examination of entire family situation and of relevant factors • Predominant reliance on psychiatric expert findings without close scrutiny despite absence of supporting scientific research on transgender parenthood and demonstrable harm to children • Lack of balanced and reasonable assessment of competing interests
Art 14 (+ Art 8) • Discrimination on gender identity grounds • Lack of convincing and sufficient reasons for difference in treatment vis-a-vis parents whose gender identity matched sex assignment at birth
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 8; 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, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 9,800 (nine thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 1,070 (one thousand and seventy euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.
Art 2 (procedural and substantive) • Ineffective investigation into the serious wounding of the applicant by police during special operation against him • Domestic authorities’ failure to demonstrate a proper response to applicant’s serious allegations • Use of force by State agents not absolutely necessary • Authorities’ actions in respect of planning, control and execution of operation not sufficient to safeguard applicant’s life
Art 3 (procedural and substantive) • Ineffective investigation into applicant’s allegations of police obstruction to his access to specialised medical treatment • Absence of inhuman and degrading treatment
A violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention; a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention; a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 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,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 200 (two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 40,000 (forty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Violation de l’article 2 de la Convention sous ses volets matériel et procédural; l’État défendeur doit verser à la requérante, dans un délai de trois mois, 60 000 EUR (soixante mille euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû sur cette somme à titre d’impôt, à convertir dans la monnaie de l’État défendeur au taux applicable à la date du règlement, pour dommage moral.
Art 8 • Family life • Proportionate restriction of applicant’s contact rights with his son based on child’s best interests • Domestic courts’ decisions with relevant and sufficient reasons
No violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Art 14 (+ Art 8) • Discrimination • Sex • Entitlement to parental leave of male police personnel conditional upon lack of maternal care for their children • No reasonable relationship of proportionality between legitimate aim of maintaining operational effectiveness of police and difference in treatment • Lack of reasonable and objective justification
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Violation of equality arms in absence of justification for public prosecutor’s intervention in proceedings
A violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention in respect of each applicant; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Morozov (application no. 22165/12); 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 following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 1,196 (one thousand one hundred and ninety-six euros) to Mr Mikhaylov, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros) to Mr Gruba and Mr Mikhaylov each, EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to Mr Marintsev and EUR 5,500 (five thousand five hundred euros) to Mr Morozov, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts; (iii) EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros) to Mr Gruba, EUR 145 (one hundred and forty-five euros) to Mr Marintsev, EUR 4,150 (four thousand one hundred and fifty euros) to Mr Mikhaylov and EUR 406 (four hundred and six euros) to Mr Morozov, in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Art 3 • Traitement dégradant • Mauvaises conditions de détention dans la maison d’arrêt, comprenant des fouilles corporelles intégrales routinières
Art 1 P1 • Respect des biens • Absence d’un but légitime conforme à l’intérêt général de la rétention de la caution pendant onze moins entre le prononcé du jugement de condamnation et le prononcé de l’arrêt d’appel
Violation de l’article 3 de la Convention en raison des conditions matérielles de détention et des fouilles corporelles du requérant en maison d’arrêt; violation de l’article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention; l’État défendeur doit verser au requérant, dans un délai de trois mois à compter de la date à laquelle l’arrêt sera devenu définitif conformément à l’article 44 § 2 de la Convention : 6 500 EUR (six mille cinq cents euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû sur cette somme à titre d’impôt, pour dommage moral, à convertir dans la monnaie de l’État défendeur au taux applicable à la date du règlement; 1 500 EUR (mille cinq cents euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû par lui sur cette somme à titre d’impôt, pour frais et dépens, à convertir dans la monnaie de l’État défendeur au taux applicable à la date du règlement.
A violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb; the respondent State is to pay the first applicant, within three months, EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
Violation de l’article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention à l’égard des deux requérants; le gouvernement défendeur a respecté ses obligations découlant des articles 34 et 38 de la Convention ; l’État défendeur doit verser aux requérants, dans un délai de trois mois: les sommes indiquées à l’annexe III au présent arrêt à titre de dommage moral et de frais et dépens, à convertir dans la monnaie de l’État défendeur au taux applicable à la date du règlement, plus tout montant pouvant être dû par les requérants sur ces sommes à titre d’impôt; les sommes indiquées à l’annexe III au présent arrêt à titre de dommage matériel, à convertir dans la monnaie de l’État défendeur au taux applicable à la date du règlement.
A violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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: (i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (iii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representatives’ bank account in the Netherlands.
8 July 2021
A breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
KHAMASTKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
A breach 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 well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table [Articles 3, 8 and 13]); 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.
YEVSYUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
A breach 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 well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table [Articles 6 and 13]); 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.
Additional sources:
