Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.01.2009 «Дело Ленская (Lenskaya) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF LENSKAYA v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 28730/03)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 29.I.2009)

--------------------------------
<*> 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 Lenskaya v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, 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 8 January 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 28730/03) 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, Mrs Lyudmila Gennadyevna Lenskaya ("the applicant"), on 19 May 2003.
2. The applicant was represented by Mrs T. Vyalova, a lawyer practising in Tomsk. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev and Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of her "right to a court" and her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions as a result of the quashing, by way of a supervisory review, of a final judgment issued in her favour.
4. By a decision of 8 March 2007, the Court declared the application partly admissible.
5. The applicant and the Government each submitted observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Court decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine).

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

6. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Tomsk. She works as a deputy head of the Tomsk Regional Hospital.
7. On 25 November 2000 the applicant asked the Kirovskiy District police department to institute criminal proceedings against her former husband, Mr Ch., complaining that he had assaulted her. She provided a police investigator with a certificate from the Tomsk Town Hospital No. 1. According to that certificate, on 25 November 2000 the applicant presented herself at the hospital, where she was examined and diagnosed with injuries to the soft tissues of the head. The certificate also stated that the applicant did not have concussion.
8. Two days later a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and issued a report which, in the relevant part, read as follows:
"1. On the day of the examination, on 27 November 2000, [the applicant] has: two bruises on the face, [and] an injury to the soft tissues on the left side of the parietal tuber. As it follows from medical documents, from 29 November to 16 December 2000 [the applicant] underwent treatment in the neurological department of the Tomsk Regional Hospital; following her dismissal from the hospital she underwent outpatient treatment, consulting a therapist until 23 December 2000 in respect of her diagnosis: "concussion".
2. The concussion, bruises on the face, the injury to the soft tissues of the head sustained by [the applicant] were caused by blunt firm objects



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8

	Поделиться:	Tweet