Week-ending 16 July 2021
This week there were seven rulings by the European Court of Human Rights with regard to Russia, finding violations of Articles 3 (prohibition on torture), 5 (liberty and security of person), 6 (fair trial) 8 (respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property). We single out the case of Fedotova and Others v. Russia as of special interest, in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russia violated the Convention in not providing same-sex unions with legal recognition under domestic law. The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all applicants and held that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.
13 July 2021
ASLANIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
A violation of Article 9 of the Convention by the Russian Federation; the Russian Federation is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts: (i) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 5,555 (five thousand five hundred fifty five euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses.
CILEI AND ROSIP v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
A violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention by the Russian Federation, in respect of both applicants; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation, in respect of the second applicant; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by the Russian Federation, in respect of the second applicant; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the complaints concerning conditions of detention and protection of property by the Russian Federation, in respect of the second applicant; the Russian Federation is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts: (i) EUR 8,832 (eight thousand eight hundred thirty two euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage, to the second applicant; (ii) EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the first applicant; (iii) EUR 16,300 (sixteen thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the second applicant; (iv) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the first applicant’s representative’s bank account; (v) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses, to the second applicant.
Art 8 • Positive obligations • Lack of any opportunity to have same-sex relationships formally acknowledged, not striking a fair balance between interests at stake • Lack of legal recognition resulting in serious daily obstacles for same-sex couples • No prevailing community interest • Wide margin of appreciation to States in choosing form of registration of same-sex unions, overstepped in present case
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all applicants; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.
A violation of Article 10 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicant the following amounts within three months, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 25 (twenty-five euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (iii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses. This amount should be paid directly into the representative’s bank account.
KHACHATRYAN AND KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA
Art 8 • Family life • Refusal to renew long-term migrant’s residence permit for failure to submit medical certificate • Domestic courts’ failure to carefully balance interests involved and assess proportionality of measure with due regard to Court’s case-law
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay, 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 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicants jointly; (ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to Mr E. Mezak, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; this amount is to be paid directly into the representative’s account, as indicated by the applicants; (iii) EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros) to Mr A. Laptev, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; this amount is to be paid directly into the representative’s account, as indicated by the applicants.
ORAZBAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in that the applicants were subjected to torture in police custody, and that no effective investigation into their complaints was carried out by the authorities; a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Satabayev and Mr Zulkarnayev on account of their unrecorded detention; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Orazbayev, Mr Chapanov and Mr Zulkarnayev; the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s inhuman conditions of detention and insufficient medical treatment; a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; a violation of Article 8 of the Convention; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 and 8 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 16,300 (sixteen thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Additional sources:
The Moscow Times,13 July 2021: Europe’s top human rights court has ordered Russia to recognize same-sex unions in a new ruling on Tuesday. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)’s ruling came in response to complaints filed in 2010 by three Russian same-sex couples whose attempts to register their marriages in Russia were rejected.
Amnesty International, 13 July 2021: Reacting to the news that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Russia is in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights by not providing same-sex unions with the ability to gain legal recognition under domestic law, Natalia Zviagina, Amnesty International’s Moscow Office Director, said: “This landmark decision underlines that the Russian government is on the wrong side of history, supporting and enabling homophobia and depriving LGBTI people of their basic human rights. The court explicitly stated that the Russian state is obliged to respect the human rights of same-sex couples and guarantee their equal recognition under the law.
