Перейти на главную сайта

Сайт ОО Сутяжник: Главная / Новости / Библиотека / Судебные дела / Европейский Суд / Изучаем Европейскую Конвенцию / Оспаривание нормативных актов / Заочная школа правозащитника/ Поиск

Изучаем Европейскую Конвенцию

Новости

  • Российское законодательство о применении Конвенции
  • Международно-правовые акты
  • Решения Европейского Суда по делам против России
  • Решения Европейского Суда по прецедентным делам
  • Судебная практика применения Конвенции в судах России
  • Практика применения Конвенции государственными не судебными органами
  • Юр. литература
  • Конференции, семинары
  • Лекции по применению Конвенции
  • Примеры процессуальных документов
  • Заключения об обоснованности обращения в Европейский Суд по правам человека
  • Проконсультироваться
  • История вступления России в Совет Европы

    Полная правовая база решений Европейского Суда на англ. и франц. языках

    Потенциальные заявители в Европейский Суд по правам человека! Если Вы считаете, что Ваши права были нарушены, или помогаете другому человеку, чьи права были нарушены, и при этом хотели бы получить консультацию о порядке обращения в Европейский Суд по правам человека, юристы общественного объединения «Сутяжник» готовы помочь Вам. Свяжитесь с нами по Интрнету или обычной почте

    Идея странички А.Л. Буркова. Поддержка странички осуществляется подразделениями ОО "Сутяжник" Академия по правам человека и Уральский центр конституционной и международной защиты прав человека

  • Решения Европейского Суда по делам против России

    THE CASE OF ILASCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA / Илие Илашку и другие против России и Молдовы 8/07/2004 (Нарушение ст. 3, 5) рус /  рус кратко / eng / eng press release / особое мнение с. Ковлера / Заявление МИД РФ в связи с постановлением 

    EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
    Press release issued by the Registrar 
    GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ILASCU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

    The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment  1 in the 
     case of Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (application no. 48787/99). The Court held 

     • by eleven votes to six, that the applicants came within the jurisdiction of Moldova within the meaning of Article 1 of 
     the European Convention on Human Rights (State jurisdiction) as regards its positive obligations; and
     • by sixteen votes to one, that the applicants came within the jurisdiction of Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the 
     Convention; 

     Treatment and conditions suffered by the applicants 

     • by eleven votes to six, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading 
     treatment or punishment) by Moldova on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Ila?cu and the conditions in which 
     he was detained while under the threat of execution;
     • by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) by Russia on account of the 
     ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Ilascu and the conditions in which he was detained while under the threat of execution;
     • by eleven votes to six, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) by Moldova since May 2001 
     on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Ivansoc and the conditions in which he had been detained;
     • by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) by Russia on account of the 
     ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Ivansoc and the conditions in which he had been detained;
     • by eleven votes to six, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) by 
     Moldova since May 2001 on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Lesco and Mr Petrov-Popa and the conditions 
     in which they had been detained;
     • by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) 
     by Russia on account of the ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Lesco and Mr Petrov-Popa and the conditions in which they 
     had been detained; 

     Deprivation of liberty 

     • by eleven votes to six, that there had been no violation of Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security) by 
     Moldova on account of Mr Ilascu’s detention;
     • by eleven votes to six, that there had been and continued to be a violation of Article 5 of the Convention by Moldova 
     on account of the detention of Mr Ivansoc, Mr Lesco and Mr Petrov-Popa after May 2001;
     • by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 5 by Russia as regards Mr Ilascu until May 2001 and 
     that there had been and continued to be a violation of Article 5 as regards Mr Ivansoc, Mr Lesco and Mr Petrov-Popa; 

     The Court further held

     • unanimously, that there was no cause to examine separately the complaint of a violation of Article 2 (right to life) on 
     account of the fact that Mr Ilascu was sentenced to death;
     • unanimously, that there was no cause to examine separately the complaint under Article 8 (right to respect for private 
     and family life);
     • unanimously, that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair 
     trial);
     • by fifteen votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)
     • by sixteen votes to one, that Moldova and Russia had failed to discharge their obligations under Article 34 of the 
     Convention (individual applications). 

     Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court held
     • by ten votes to seven, that Moldova was to pay Mr Ivansoc, Mr Lesco and Mr Petrov-Popa 60,000 euros (EUR) each 
     for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage arising from the 
     breach of Article 34 and an overall sum of EUR 7,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 1,321.34 already received in 
     legal aid;
     • By sixteen votes to one, that Russia was to pay EUR 180,000 to Mr Ilascu and EUR 120,000 to each of the other 
     applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, EUR 7,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage arising 
     from the breach of Article 34 and an overall sum of EUR 14,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 2,642.66 already 
     received in legal aid. 

     The Court further held, unanimously, that Moldova and Russia were to take all the necessary steps to put an end to the 
     arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release. 

     (The judgment is available in English and in French). 

     1. Principal facts 

     The applicants, Ilie Ilascu, Alexandru Lesco, Andrei Ivansoc and Tudor Petrov-Popa, who were Moldovan nationals at 
     the time when the application was lodged, were born in 1952, 1955, 1961 and 1963 respectively. Mr Ilascu acquired 
     Romanian nationality in 2000, as did Mr Lesco and Mr Ivansoc in 2001. The applicants, with the exception of Mr 
     Ilascu and Mr Lescu, who were released in May 2001 and June 2004 respectively, are currently detained in the 
     “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (“the MRT”), a region of Moldova known as Transdniestria, which declared its 
     independence in 1991. 

     At the material time Mr Ilascu was the local leader of the Popular Front and was working towards the unification of 
     Moldova with Romania. He was twice elected to the Moldovan Parliament and was appointed as a member of the 
     Moldovan delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In December 2000 he was elected to the 
     Senate of the Romanian Parliament and appointed as a member of the Romanian delegation to the Parliamentary 
     Assembly. 

     Between 2 and 4 June 1992 the applicants were arrested at their homes in Tiraspol by a number of people, some of 
     whom were wearing uniforms bearing the insignia of the former USSR’s Fourteenth Army. They were accused of 
     anti-Soviet activities and illegally combating the legitimate government of the State of Transdniestria, under the direction 
     of the Moldovan Popular Front and Romania. They were also charged with a number of offences which included two 
     murders. On 9 December 1993 the “Supreme Court of the MRT” sentenced Mr Ilascu to death and ordered the 
     confiscation of his property. The other applicants were sentenced by the same court to terms of 12 to 15 years’ 
     imprisonment, and their property was likewise ordered to be confiscated. 

     2. Procedure and composition of the Court 

     The application was lodged on 14 June 1999. On 20 March 2001 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated 
     relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article 30 of the Convention). The Grand Chamber decided 
     to hold a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application, and the President invited the Romanian Government 
     to take part. By a decision of 4 July 2001 the application was declared partly admissible, after a hearing had been held 
     on 6 June 2001. A delegation of the Court conducted an on-the-spot investigation in Chisinsu and Tiraspol from 10 to 
     15 March 2003. 

     Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows: 

     Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President,
     Christos Rozakis (Greek),
     Jean-Paul Costa (French),
     Georg Ress (German),
     Nicolas Bratza (British),
     Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot),
     Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese)
     Fransoise Tulkens (Belgian),
     Corneliu Bsrsan (Romanian),
     Josep Casadevall (Andorran),
     Bostjan Zupansis (Slovenian),
     John Hedigan (Irish)
     Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands),
     Tudor Panssru (Moldovan),
     Egil Levits (Latvian)
     Anatoli Kovler (Russian),
     Elisabet Fura-Sandstrsm (Swedish), judges, 

     and also Paul Mahoney, Registrar. 

     3. Summary of the judgment 2

     Complaints 

     The applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the grounds that the court which had 
     convicted them did not have jurisdiction and that, at all events, the proceedings which had led to their conviction had not 
     been fair. They also complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the confiscation of their 
     possessions, and maintained that their detention had been unlawful, contrary to Article 5. Mr. Ilascu further complained 
     of a violation of Article 2 on account of his being sentenced to death. All the applicants complained in addition of the 
     conditions of their detention, relying expressly on Articles 3 and 8 and, in substance, Article 34. 

     They submitted that the Moldovan authorities were responsible for the violations they alleged since they had not taken 
     adequate measures to put a stop to them. In their submission, the Russian Federation shared that responsibility as the 
     territory of Transdniestria was under Russia’s de facto control owing to the stationing of its troops and military 
     equipment there and the support it gave to the separatists. 

     Decision of the Court 

     Article 1 

     As regards Moldova

     On the basis of all the material in its possession, the Court considered that the Moldovan Government, the only 
     legitimate government of the Republic of Moldova under international law, did not exercise authority over part of its 
     territory, namely that part which was under the effective control of the “MRT”. However, even in the absence of 
     effective control over the Transdniestrian region, Moldova still had a positive obligation under Article 1 of the 
     Convention to take the measures that it was in its power to take and were in accordance with international law to secure 
     to the applicants the rights guaranteed by the Convention. 

     Consequently, the applicants were within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova for the purposes of Article 1, but 
     its responsibility for the acts complained of was to be assessed in the light of its positive obligations under the 
     Convention. These related both to the measures needed to re-establish its control over Transdniestrian territory, as an 
     expression of its jurisdiction, and to measures to ensure respect for the applicants’ rights, including attempts to secure 
     their release. 

     As regards the applicants’ situation, the Court noted that before ratification of the Convention in 1997 and even after 
     that date the Moldovan authorities had taken a number of measures to secure the applicants’ rights. On the other hand, 
     it did not have any evidence that since Mr Ilascu’s release in May 2001 effective measures had been taken to put an end 
     to the continuing infringements of their Convention rights complained of by the other applicants. In their bilateral 
     relations with the Russian Federation the Moldovan authorities had not been any more attentive to the applicants’ fate; 
     the Court had not been informed of any approach by the Moldovan authorities to the Russian authorities after May 2001 
     aimed at obtaining the remaining applicants’ release. 

     Even after Mr Ilascu’s release in May 2001, it had been within the power of the Moldovan Government to take 
     measures to secure to the applicants their rights under the Convention. The Court accordingly concluded that Moldova’s 
     responsibility was capable of being engaged on account of its failure to discharge its positive obligations with regard to 
     the acts complained of which had occurred after May 200 

     As regards Russia

     During the Moldovan conflict in 1991-92 forces of the former Fourteenth Army (which had owed allegiance to the 
     USSR, the CIS and the Russian Federation in turn) stationed in Transdniestria, had fought with and on behalf of the 
     Transdniestrian separatist forces. Large quantities of weapons from the stores of the Fourteenth Army had been 
     voluntarily transferred to the separatists, who had also been able to seize possession of other weapons unopposed by 
     Russian soldiers. In addition, throughout the clashes between the Moldovan authorities and the Transdniestrian 
     separatists the Russian leaders had supported the separatist authorities by their political declarations. 

     The Russian authorities had therefore contributed both militarily and politically to the creation of a separatist regime in 
     the region of Transdniestria, part of the territory of the Republic of Moldova. Even after the ceasefire agreement of 21 
     July 1992 Russia had continued to provide military, political and economic support to the separatist regime, thus 
     enabling it to survive by strengthening itself and by acquiring a certain amount of autonomy vis-s-vis Moldova. In the 
     Court’s opinion, all of the acts committed by Russian soldiers with regard to the applicants, including their transfer into 
     the charge of the separatist regime, in the context of the Russian authorities’ collaboration with that illegal regime, were 
     capable of engaging responsibility for the consequences of the acts of that regime. 

     The Russian army was still stationed in Moldovan territory in breach of the undertakings to withdraw them completely 
     given by Russia at the OSCE summits in 1999 and 2001. Both before and after 5 May 1998, when the Convention 
     came into force with regard to Russia, in the security zone controlled by the Russian peacekeeping forces the “MRT” 
     regime continued to deploy its troops illegally and to manufacture and sell weapons in breach of the agreement of 21 
     July 1992. All of the above proved that the “MRT” remained under the effective authority, or at the very least under the 
     decisive influence, of Russia, and in any event that it survived by virtue of the military, economic, financial and political 
     support that Russia gave it. 

     That being so, the Court considered that there was a continuous and uninterrupted link of responsibility on the part of 
     Russia for the applicants’ fate, as its policy of support for the regime and collaboration with it had continued beyond 5 
     May 1998, and after that date Russia had made no attempt to put an end to the applicants’ situation brought about by its 
     agents and had not acted to prevent the violations allegedly committed. The applicants therefore came within the 
     “jurisdiction” of Russia and its responsibility was engaged with regard to the acts complained of. 

     The Court’s jurisdiction 

     The Court observed that the Convention had come into force with regard to Moldova on 12 September 1997 and with 
     regard to Russia on 5 May 1998. It pointed out that the Convention applied only to events subsequent to its entry into 
     force with regard to the Contracting States concerned. Consequently, the Court did not have jurisdiction to examine the 
     complaint under Article 6 and had jurisdiction to examine those under Articles 3, 5 and 8 only in so far as they 
     concerned events subsequent to the dates on which the Convention had entered into force with regard to Moldova and 
     Russia. Lastly, the Court had jurisdiction to examine Mr Ilascu’s complaint under Article 2. 

     Article 2 

     Since Mr Ilascu had been released and was now living with his family in Romania, the Court considered that the risk of 
     enforcement of the death penalty imposed on him was more hypothetical than real. On the other hand, it was not 
     disputed that after ratification of the Convention by the two respondent States Mr Ilascu must have suffered as a 
     consequence both of the death sentence imposed on him and of his conditions of detention while under the threat of 
     execution of that sentence. That being so, the Court considered that the facts complained of by Mr Ilascu did not call for 
     a separate examination under Article 2 of the Convention, but would be more appropriately examined under Article 3 
     instead. 

     Article 3 

     As regards Mr Ilascu

     During the very long period he had spent on “death row” the applicant had lived in the constant shadow of death, in fear 
     of execution. Unable to exercise any remedy, he had lived for many years, including the time after the Convention’s 
     entry into force, in conditions of detention apt to remind him of the prospect of his sentence being enforced. The 
     anguish and suffering he felt had been aggravated by the fact that the sentence had no legal basis or legitimacy for 
     Convention purposes. The “Supreme Court of the MRT” which had passed sentence on Mr Ilascu had been set up by 
     an entity which was illegal under international law and had not been recognised by the international community. That 
     “court” belonged to a system which could hardly be said to function on a constitutional and legal basis reflecting a 
     judicial tradition compatible with the Convention. That was evidenced by the arbitrary nature of the circumstances in 
     which the applicants had been tried and convicted, as they had described them in an account which had not been 
     disputed by the other parties and as described and analysed by the institutions of the OSCE. 

     As regards the applicant’s conditions of detention while on death row, the Court noted that Mr Ilascu had been detained 
     for eight years in very strict isolation: he had had no contact with other prisoners, no news from the outside - since he 
     was not permitted to send or receive mail - and no right to contact his lawyer or receive regular visits from his family. 
     His cell had been unheated, even in severe winter conditions, and had had no natural light source or ventilation. Mr 
     Ilascu had also been deprived of food as a punishment, and, given the restrictions on receiving parcels, even the food he 
     received from outside had often been unfit for consumption. He had been able to take showers only very rarely, often 
     having to wait several months between one and the next. On that subject the Court referred to the report of the 
     Committee for the Prevention of Torture following its visit to Transdniestria in 2000, in which it had described isolation 
     for so many years as indefensible. 

     The applicant’s conditions of detention had had deleterious effects on his health, which had deteriorated in the course of 
     the many years he had spent in prison; he had not received proper care, having been deprived of regular medical 
     examinations and treatment and dietetically appropriate meals. The Court noted with concern the existence of rules 
     authorising discretion in relation to correspondence and prison visits, on the part of both prison warders and other 
     authorities, and emphasised that such rules were arbitrary and incompatible with the appropriate and effective safeguards 
     against abuses which any prison system in a democratic society must put in place. Moreover, in the present case, such 
     rules had made the applicant’s conditions of detention even more difficult. 

     The death sentence imposed on the applicant, coupled with the conditions he had been living in and the treatment he had 
     suffered during his detention had been particularly serious and cruel and must accordingly be considered acts of torture 
     within the meaning of Article 3. As Mr Ilascu had been detained at the time when the Convention came into force with 
     regard to Russia, the latter was responsible for his conditions of detention, the treatment inflicted on him and the 
     suffering caused to him in prison. Mr Ilascu had been released in May 2001 and it was only from that date on that 
     Moldova’s responsibility was engaged for failure to discharge its positive obligations. Consequently, there had been a 
     violation of Article 3 by Russia but not by Moldova. 

     As regards Mr Ivansoc

     In the light of all the information at its disposal, the Court considered that it could take it as established that during the 
     applicant’s detention he had received a large number of blows and other ill-treatment, and that at times he had been 
     denied food and all forms of medical assistance in spite of his state of health, which had been weakened by these 
     conditions of detention. In particular, the Court drew attention to the persecution and ill-treatment to which he had been 
     subjected in May 1999 after lodging his application to the Court. 

     In addition, Mr Ivansoc had been detained since his conviction in 1993 in solitary confinement, without contact with 
     other prisoners and without access to newspapers. He was not permitted to see a lawyer, his only contacts with the 
     outside world taking the form of visits and parcels from his wife, subject to authorisation by the prison authorities when 
     they saw fit to give it. All these restrictions, which had no legal basis and were left to the authorities’ discretion, were 
     incompatible with a prison regime in a democratic society and had played their part in increasing the applicant’s distress 
     and mental suffering. He had been detained in an unheated, badly ventilated cell without natural light, and had not 
     received the treatment required by his state of health, despite a few medical examinations authorised by the prison 
     authorities. 

     Taken as a whole, and regard being had to its seriousness, its repetitive nature and its purpose, the treatment inflicted on 
     Mr Ivansoc had caused “severe” pain and suffering, had been particularly serious and cruel and had constituted acts of 
     torture within the meaning of Article 3. As Mr Ivansoc had been detained at the time when the Convention came into 
     force with regard to the Russian Federation, the latter was responsible on account of his conditions of detention, the 
     treatment inflicted on him and the suffering caused to him in prison. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 by 
     Russia and by Moldova. 

     As regards Mr Lesco and Mr Petrov-Popa

     The Court considered that it could take it as established that during their detention Mr Lesco and Mr Petrov-Popa had 
     experienced extremely harsh conditions of detention (visits and parcels from their families subject to the discretionary 
     authorisation of the prison administration; deprivation of food at times, or distribution of food unfit for consumption, 
     deprivation most of the time of all forms of appropriate medical assistance despite their state of health, which had been 
     weakened by these conditions of detention; lack of the dietetically appropriate meals prescribed by their doctors). These 
     conditions had deteriorated since 2001.
     In addition, Mr Petrov-Popa had been held in solitary confinement since 1993, having no contact with other prisoners or 
     access to newspapers in his own language. Both Mr Petrov-Popa and Mr Lesco had been denied access to a lawyer 
     until June 2003. 

     Such treatment was apt to engender pain or suffering, both physical and mental. Taken as a whole, and regard being had 
     to its seriousness, it could be termed inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. As Mr Lesco 
     and Mr Petrov-Popa had been detained at the time when the Convention came into force with regard to Russia, the 
     latter was responsible for their conditions of detention, the treatment inflicted on them and the suffering caused to them 
     in prison. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 by Russia and by Moldova. 

     Article 5 

     Referring to its conclusions under Article 3 regarding the nature of the proceedings in issue, the Court found that none of 
     the applicants had been convicted by a “court”, and that a sentence of imprisonment passed by a judicial body such as 
     the “Supreme Court of the MRT” at the close of proceedings like those conducted in the present case could not be 
     regarded as “lawful detention” ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”. That being so, the 
     deprivation of liberty suffered by the applicants could not satisfy the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 (a) of Article 5 
     of the Convention. It followed that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention until May 2001 as 
     regards Mr Ilascu, and that there had been and continued to be a violation of that provision as regards the applicants still 
     detained. 

     Having regard to the fact that the applicants were detained at the time of the Convention’s entry into force with regard 
     to Russia, the Court concluded that the conduct constituting a violation of Article 5 was imputable to the Russian 
     Federation as regards all the applicants. Taking into account its conclusion that the responsibility of the Republic of 
     Moldova by virtue of its positive obligations was engaged from May 2001, the Court concluded that there had been no 
     violation of Article 5 by Moldova as regards Mr Ilascu, but a violation of that provision as regards the other applicants. 

     Article 8 

     The applicants’ complaint was limited to the fact that it was impossible to write freely to their families and the Court 
     from prison and to the difficulties they had encountered in receiving visits from their families. As to the complaint 
     relating to the impossibility of applying to the Court from prison, this fell more naturally under Article 34, which the 
     Court was to examine separately. However, having taken these allegations into account in the context of Article 3, the 
     Court considered that it was not necessary to examine them separately from the standpoint of Article 8. 

     Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 

     Even on the supposition that it had jurisdiction to rule on this complaint, the Court noted that it had not been 
     substantiated, and therefore concluded that there had been no violation of the provision relied on. 

     Article 34 

     The Court noted that the applicants had asserted that they had not been able to apply to it from their place of detention 
     and that their application, which had been signed by their wives, had been lodged by the only lawyer who was 
     representing them at the beginning of the proceedings. It further noted the threats made against the applicants by the 
     Transdniestrian prison authorities and the deterioration in their conditions of detention after their application was lodged. 
     Such acts constituted an improper and unacceptable form of pressure which had hindered their exercise of the right of 
     individual petition. 

     In addition, the Court noted with concern the content of a note of April 2001 sent by Russia to the Moldovan 
     authorities, from which it appeared that the Russian authorities had requested Moldova to withdraw the observations it 
     had submitted to the Court in October 2000 in so far as these implied responsibility on the part of Russia on account of 
     the fact that its troops were stationed in Moldovan territory, in Transdniestria. At the hearing on 6 June 2001 the 
     Moldovan Government had declared that it wished to withdraw the part of its observations concerning Russia. Such 
     conduct on the part of the Russian Government represented a negation of the common heritage of political traditions, 
     ideals, freedom and the rule of law mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and were capable of seriously 
     hindering the Court’s examination of an application lodged in exercise of the right of individual petition and thereby 
     interfering with the right guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention itself. There had therefore been a breach by Russia 
     of Article 34 of the Convention. 

     The Court further noted that after Mr Ilascu’s release he had spoken to the Moldovan authorities about the possibility of 
     obtaining the release of the other applicants, and that in that context Mr Voronin, the President of Moldova, had publicly 
     accused Mr Ilascu of being the cause of his comrades’ continued detention, through his refusal to withdraw his 
     application against Moldova and Russia. Such remarks by the highest authority of a Contracting State, making an 
     improvement in the applicants’ situation depend on withdrawal of the application lodged against that State or another 
     Contracting State, represented direct pressure intended to hinder exercise of the right of individual petition. That 
     conclusion held good whatever the real or theoretical influence that authority might have on the applicants’ situation. 
     Consequently, Mr Voronin’s remarks amounted to an interference by Moldova with the applicants’ exercise of their 
     right of individual petition, in breach of Article 34. 

     Judge Casadevall expressed a partly dissenting opinion, joined by Judges Ress, Tulkens, Bsrsan and Fura-Sandstrsm. 
     Judges Ress and Loucaides each expressed a partly dissenting opinion. Judge Bratza expressed a partly dissenting 
     opinion, joined by Judges Rozakis, Hedigan, Thomassen and Pansiru. Judge Kovler expressed a dissenting opinion. 
     These opinions are annexed to the judgment.

     

     

    Новинки

    А. Л. Бурков «Конвенция о защите прав человека в судах России». Москва: Волтерс Клувер, 2010

    А. Л. Бурков "Влияние Европейской конвенции по правам человека на Российское право" (Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, 2007)

    Шестое издание "Применение Европейской конвенции по правам человека в судах России"

    Пятое издание "Исполнение постановлений Европейского суда по правам человека"

    Четвертое издание "Право на жизнь, запрет пыток и бесчеловечного или унижающего достоинство обращения или наказания: европейские стандарты, российское законодательство и правоприменительная практика"

    Третье издание "Право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность: европейские стандарты и российская практика"

    Второе издание "Европейские стандарты права на справедливое судебное разбирательство и российская практика"

    Первое издание "Европейский Суд по правам человека: правила обращения и судопроизводства"

    Сайт ОО Сутяжник: Главная / Новости / Библиотека / Судебные дела / Европейский Суд / Изучаем Европейскую Конвенцию / Оспаривание нормативных актов / Заочная школа правозащитника / Поиск