Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 04.11.2010 «Дело Муминов (Muminov) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF MUMINOV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 42502/06)

JUDGMENT <*>
(Just satisfaction)

(Strasbourg, 4.XI.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 Muminov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 October 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 42502/06) 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 an Uzbek national, Mr Rustam Tulaganovich Muminov ("the applicant"), on 23 October 2006.
2. In a judgment delivered on 11 December 2008 ("the principal judgment"), the Court decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). The Court dismissed the Government's objections as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the complaints about a risk of ill-treatment in the event of the applicant's being expelled to Uzbekistan and the unlawfulness of his deprivation of liberty. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant's expulsion to Uzbekistan; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the authorities' failure to afford the applicant an effective and accessible remedy in relation to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the unavailability of any procedure for a judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan; and a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in relation to his detention with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan. The Court also held that there had been no breach of the respondent State's obligation under Article 34 of the Convention and that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.
3. Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant's representative (Ms I. Biryukova) claimed monetary compensation, on her client's behalf, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, leaving the amount to the Court's discretion.
4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (see § 143 of the principal judgment and point 9 of the operative provisions).
5. The applicant and the Government each filed observations.

THE FACTS

6. The following facts were established in the principal judgment:
"38. According to the applicant's representative before the Court, the applicant had been refused permission to be represented by his privately retained counsel but legal-aid counse



> 1 2 3 ... 4

	Поделиться:	Tweet