Week-ending 22 October 2021
This week the European Court of Human Rights handed down 13 judgments with regard to Russia, finding violations of the Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (liberty and security of person), Article 6 (fair trial) and Article 8 (private and family life). The Committee to Protect Journalists issued a press release regarding the ruling in the case of the 2004 disappearance and alleged murder of investigative journalist Maksim Maksimov from St. Petersburg. In this case, the Court found that Russian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into Maksimov’s disappearance. Joanna Evans, Legal Director at the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) in London, is quoted as saying: “Seventeen years after Maksim Maksimov disappeared, this judgment is a step forward towards justice both for him and for all journalists working in countries where free reporting places their lives at risk.” Maksimov was last seen on 29 June 2004 and was investigating police corruption by senior officers of the Russian Ministry of Interior at the time of his death.
Source: CPJ, 20 October 2021: After years of waiting, this week, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance and alleged murder of investigative journalist Maksim Maksimov in 2004.
19 October 2021
Art 8 • Respect for family life • Unjustified and disproportionate general ban on telephone calls for life prisoners under strict regime in special-regime correctional colonies • Imposition of ban solely on account of applicant’s life sentence irrespective of any other relevant factors • Importance of preventing breakdown of prisoners’ family ties by maintaining all forms of contact, including by telephone
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Applicant’s inability to attend hearing in civil proceedings which he had instituted to challenge the refusal of telephone calls to his family
Art 37 § 1 (b) (+ Art 3) • Striking out applications • Matter before Court resolved • Applicant no longer subjected to routine handcuffing and complaint adequately and sufficiently remedied by measures ordered by domestic courts
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; a violation of Article 6 § 1 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 3,400 (three thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 1,300 (one thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid to the representative’s bank account.
Art 6 § 1 (pénal) • Audience publique • Exclusion du public de l’intégralité du procès pénal contre des terroristes injustifiée • Exclusion non limitée à ce qui était strictement nécessaire pour préserver la confidentialité des documents classés secrets • Existence présumée de membres du groupe armé illégal non arrêtés insuffisante pour justifier la sécurité des parties • Cour suprême ayant aussi examiné l’affaire à huis clos
Art 6 § 1 (pénal) et Art 6 § 3 d) • Procès équitable • Égalité des armes • Témoins • Refus de faire produire des données techniques de rapports d’expertise • Refus de faire interroger des experts de l’accusation et d’accueillir des avis de spécialistes cités par la défense
Violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention à raison de l’absence de publicité du procès pénal des requérants ; violation de l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 d) de la Convention à raison du défaut d’équité de la procédure pénale dirigée contre les requérants ; le constat de violation constitue en lui-même une satisfaction équitable suffisante pour le dommage moral subi par les requérants.
Art 2 (procedural and substantive) • Ineffective investigation into the killing of the applicants’ relatives at a university campus as a result of a special operation by State agents • Domestic authorities’ repeated refusals to open a criminal investigation into applicants’ credible allegations • Use of lethal force not absolutely necessary
A violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural head; a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive head; 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, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
A violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb; the respondent State is to pay the applicant EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) within three months, 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.
A violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention; a violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Kuriyev; a violation of Article 8 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts: (i) EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; the award to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; the award is to be converted into GBP and paid directly into the bank account of the applicant’s representative in the United Kingdom.
MAKSIMOVA AND KAPUSTIN v. RUSSIA
A violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention; no failure by the respondent State to comply with Article 38 of the Convention.
Art 8 • Family life • Failure to secure Serbian national’s right to be in contact with son residing in Russia after divorce
A violation of Article 8 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 12,500 (twelve thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 7,456 (seven thousand four hundred and fifty-six euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.
A violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 12,500 (twelve thousand five hundred euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
Violation de l’article 3 de la Convention, sous son volet matériel ; l’État défendeur doit verser au requérant, dans un délai de trois mois, 10 000 EUR (dix mille euros) au taux applicable à la date du règlement plus tout montant pouvant être dû sur cette somme à titre d’impôt, pour dommage moral.
Art 34 • Locus standi • Right of the second applicant to act on behalf of the first applicant as his family member given his unknown whereabouts and the existence of family life between them • Notion of “family” not confined solely to marriage-based relationships and might encompass other de facto “family” ties
Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Inhuman and degrading treatment of the first applicant by State agents in Chechnya following his abduction • Physical pain and intense mental suffering • Lack of effective investigation • Authorities’ inability to ensure basic cooperation between law-enforcement bodies in Chechnya and other regions of the Russian Federation
Art 5 § 1 • Lawful arrest or detention • Arbitrary detention without legal basis and not officially acknowledged
A violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant; a violation of the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant; a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant; the respondent State is to pay the first applicant EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros), 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; that amount is to be paid to the second applicant within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
Art 8 • Family life • Fair balance struck in domestic court decision establishing child’s residence in Russia with mother
No violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
A violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of persons enumerated in paragraph 90 of the judgment; a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the fourth and seventh applicants in Tatayev and Others (no. 51928/15); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts: (i) the amounts indicated in the Appendix in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts; (ii) EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros) to the applicants in Tatayev and Others (no. 51928/15), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representative’s bank account as specified by the applicants; (iii) EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) to the applicants in Gaysultanov and Others (no. 52867/15), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the representative’s bank account as specified by the applicants.
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantial and procedural limbs in respect of all the applicants, except for Mr Petenko; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Mubarakshin, Mr I. Kotkov, Mr A. Kotkov, Mr Saaryan, and Mr Petenko; 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 be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
