Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Никитина (Nikitina) против России» [англ.]







EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF NIKITINA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 47486/07)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 15.VII.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Nikitina v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 47486/07) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Ms Yevgeniya Ivanovna Nikitina ("the applicant"), on 2 October 2007.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, representative of the Russian Federation before the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 16 March 2009 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

4. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kovarditsy, the Vladimir Region.
5. In 1998 the applicant's father died in a fire. The applicant alleged that the death had been caused by the firemen's manifest failure to comply with the fire-fighting instructions. In 2001 K., an investigator of the Murom Division of the State Fire Department, reported to a local prosecutor about the incident. In his official explanatory note issued in reply to the prosecutor's inquiry K. stated that the applicant's repeated unfounded complaints demonstrated that she must have been suffering from some mental disorder and that he strongly recommended subjecting her to a psychiatric examination.
6. The applicant sued K. and the State Fire Department of the Vladimir Region for defamation.
7. On 22 July 2004 the Murom Town Court found in the applicant's favour. The court held, in particular, that K. had acted in his official capacity of an investigator when making the defamatory statements about the applicant. The court awarded her 3,030 Russian roubles (RUB) in non-pecuniary damages against the State Fire Department of the Vladimir Region and ordered K. to retract the false information about the applicant. On 21 September 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the judgment in substance, and it entered into force. The judgment has not been executed to date.
8. On 1 April 2005 pursuant to order No. 487 of 26 October 2004 issued by the Ministry of the Emergency Response of Russia, the State Fire Department of the Vladimir Region was liquidated by way of removal from the State tax register. The functions of the State Fire Department have since been executed by the previously existing Vladimir Region Office of the Ministry of the Emergency Response of Russia.
9. On 27 March 2006 two writs of execution issued by the Murom Town Court on



Страницы: 1 2 3 ... 4 5

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com

0.2216 с