Week-ending 26 November 2021
This week the European Court of Human Rights handed down five rulings in relation to Russia, finding violations of Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 5 (liberty and security of person), 6 (fair trial), 8 (private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 11 (assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination); and also of Protocols 1 (Article 1 – protection of property), 4 (Article 2 – freedom of movement) and 7 (Article 1 – procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).
Human Rights Watch, on 25 November 2021, highlighted the case of TAPAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Luisa Tapayeva, a Chechen woman, should be reunited with her four daughters who were taken from her after their father died. Under local customs, children are “owned” by the father and his family.
23 November 2021
Art 1 P1 • Respect de biens • Maintien illégal de la saisie des biens immeubles du requérant après sa condamnation pour escroquerie
Il y a eu 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, les sommes suivantes, à convertir dans la monnaie de l’État défendeur au taux applicable à la date du règlement: 1 300 EUR (mille trois cents euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû sur cette somme à titre d’impôt, pour dommage moral; 850 EUR (huit cent cinquante euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû sur cette somme par le requérant à titre d’impôt, pour frais et dépens, à verser sur le compte bancaire de Me V.V. Shukhardin.;
CENTRE OF SOCIETIES FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS IN RUSSIA AND FROLOV v. RUSSIA
Art 9 • Freedom of religion • Failure to protect Krishna religious organisation’s beliefs from hostile speech used by regional State authorities in “anti-cult” publication • Use of derogatory language and unsubstantiated allegations for describing applicant’s centre’s religious beliefs • Margin of appreciation overstepped
Art 11 • Freedom of peaceful assembly • Unlawful and arbitrary refusal to allow Vaishnavism follower to hold peaceful public religious events
A violation of Article 9 of the Convention in respect of the applicant centre; a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 9, in respect of Mr Frolov; 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 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to the applicants jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses.
Art 1 P7 • Expulsion of foreign nationals without basis in substantive law and without providing the applicants a realistic possibility to exercise their rights
Art 2 P4 • Freedom of movement • Sanction for failure to register a change of place of stay within three-day time-limit not in accordance with the law
Art 9 • Freedom of religion • Unjustified interference through singling out applicants for special treatment paving the way for their precipitated departure, for reasons connected to their religious work
Art 8 • Interference with family life of family members being expelled as well as those who stayed behind in Russia, in breach of domestic law
Art 3 • Degrading treatment • Placement in cell without provision for meeting basic needs
Art 5 § 1 • Unlawful detention carried out for the purpose of leveraging release in order to obtain applicant’s consent to leave Russia without appealing
Art 5 § 5 • No enforceable right to compensation for Art 5 § 1 violation
A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention in respect of Mr Corley and Mr Igarashi; a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention in respect of Mr Igarashi; a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in respect of Mr Corley and Mr Igarashi; a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the degrading conditions of Mr Igarashi’s detention; a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 of the Convention in respect of Mr Igarashi; 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: (i) EUR 1,270 (one thousand two hundred and seventy euros) to Mr Igarashi in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable; (ii) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to Mr Corley and EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) to Mr Igarashi in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable; (iii) EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to the applicants jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses.
KOOPERATIV NEPTUN SERVIS c. RUSSIE
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Accès à un tribunal • Absence d’examen judiciaire de l’inscription du bien de la société requérante sur la liste des constructions irrégulières visées par la mesure de démolition figurant en annexe de l’arrêté contesté
Art 1 P1 • Réglementer l’usage des biens • Absence de contrôle de la situation individuelle de la société requérante avant ou après la démolition du bien • Ingérence non conforme à la loi nationale
Il y a eu violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention; il y a eu violation de l’article 1 du Protocole no 1; 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, les sommes suivantes, à convertir dans la monnaie de l’État défendeur au taux applicable à la date du règlement: 6 000 EUR (six mille euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû sur cette somme à titre d’impôt, pour dommage moral; 4 784 EUR (quatre mille sept cent quatre-vingt-quatre euros), plus tout montant pouvant être dû sur cette somme par le requérant à titre d’impôt, pour frais et dépens.
Art 8 • Art 14 (+ Art 8) • Family life • Discrimination • Failure of domestic authorities to take reasonable and timely measures to reunite widow and her children kidnapped by father-in law, against the background of regional gender stereotypes and patrilineal practices
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all applicants; a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the first applicant; 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 (sixteen thousand two hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 9,196 (nine thousand one hundred and ninety-six euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the first applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, out of which EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros) to be paid into the bank account of Stichting Justice Initiative.
