Общественное объединение "Сутяжник"

Главная страница

Новости судебных дел

Судебное дело "Бугрова против России (дело в ЕСПЧ № 12804/12) - признание бесчеловечным нормы площади на одного человека в камере для административно задержанных"


Private complaint (частная жалоба) dated 25 June 2011, considering the judicial decision dated May, 16 2011 in which the court refused to accept an application of challenging item 11 of Statement on allowance conditions of people detained for administrative offence, nutritional standards and medical services provided for such people

 

25.06.2011

 

       to the Civil Cases Cassation Panel of the Supreme Court of Russian
           Federation through trial court of the Supreme Court of Russian
   Federation (judge: Yemisheva V. A.) 121260, Moscow, Povarskaya st., 15

   Claimant: Bugrova Lada Stanislavovna

   Address: 620075, Yekaterinburg, Turgeneva st., 11-1

   PRIVATE COMPLAINT

     considering the judicial decision dated May, 16 2011 in which the
      court refused to accept an application of challenging item 11 of
          Statement on allowance conditions of people detained for
     administrative offence, nutritional standards and medical services
                          provided for such people

   On  April,  30  2011  L. S. Bugrova (hereinafter called the Applicant)
   appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Russian  Federation in order to
   challenge  item  11  of  "Statement  on allowance conditions of people
   detained for administrative offence, nutritional standards and medical
   services  provided  for  such  people ", approved in Government of the
   Russian Federation Ordinance No.627 dated October, 10 2003.

   On  May,  16 the Supreme Court of Russian Federation issued a decision
   in which it refused to accept L. S. Bugrova's application.

   1. The court has misapplied procedural law.

   The  court considered that the Applicant in her reference to the court
   was acting on the base of article 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure as
   a procedural successor in interest.

   The  Applicant  appealed to the Supreme Court of Russian Federation as
   an  individual  entity,  as  an  implicit  victim, about which she had
   comprehensively  written  in  her  application to the Supreme Court of
   Russian  Federation,  namely,  on  page  2  of  the application it was
   specified as follows:

   "Due to demise of Bugrov M. Y., it's practically impossible for him to
   challenge article 11 of the Statute. Withal, it is commonly recognized
   in  judicial  practice  of  the  European Human Rights Court that if a
   third  person  has had a close relationship with the deceased (kinship
   or other), they are considered an implicit victim and have a right for
   legal  action  in order to claim for restoration of violated rights of
   the  deceased  -  direct  victim  (Cakici  v.  Turkey, judgment of the
   European  Court  of  Human  Rights  dated  July, 8 1999, para. 98 - in
   translation  of  M. de Salvia, Precedents of the European Human Rights
   Court.  Spb.:  Yuridichesky  Centre  press,  2004.  P. 820; Rantsev v.
   Cyprus  and Russia dated January, 7 2010, item 3 ref. judgment text on
   [1]http://sutyajnik.ru/documents/3184.pd). Thus according to item 3 of
   the  judgment  in  case  Rantsev  v.  Cyprus and Russia claimant was a
   father, who complained inter alia about violation of the rights of his
   deceased  daughter  guaranteed  by  Article  2  of  the Convention and
   insufficient  investigation  of circumstances of her death. I am M. Y.
   Bugrov's  wife.  It  means I am an implicit victim and have a right to
   take legal action.

   According  to  part  4  of  article  15 of the Constitution of Russian
   Federation  the  European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and
   Inhuman  or  Degrading  Treatment or Punishment is a part of the legal
   framework of Russian Federation.

   According  to  item  10  of  Decree  of Plenum of the Supreme Court of
   Russian  Federation  No.5 dated October, 10 2003 "About application of
   commonly  recognized  principles  and legal standards of international
   law   and   international   treaties   in   trial  courts  of  general
   jurisdiction"  such courts are obliged to use the Convention regarding
   judicial  practice  of the European Court of Human Rights in order not
   to commit a violation of any right described in the Convention for the
   Protection  of  Human  Rights  and Fundamental Freedoms." According to
   item  2.1  of Decree of the Constitutional Court of Russian Federation
   dated  February,  2 2007 "judgments of the European Human Rights Court
   along  with  the  Convention  for  the  Protection of Human Rights and
   Fundamental  Freedoms  are  a  part  of  the  legal  system of Russian
   Federation,  and  thus  should  be  taken  into  consideration  by the
   law-enforcement    body   when   administering   corresponding   legal
   standards".

   2.  The  court  has  violated  Article  6  of  the  Convention for the
   Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

   The  Supreme Court of Russian Federation in its decision dated May, 16
   2011  didn't  assess an argument of the Applicant about her procedural
   legal capacity.

   By  refusing to regard the Applicant's argument, considering her right
   to  independent  appeal  to  the  court,  it  has  violated  the legal
   standards  described  in part 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the
   Protection  of  Human  Rights  and Fundamental Freedoms. The standards
   describer  in part 1 of Article 6 of the Convention was interpreted in
   judicial  practice  of  the  European  Court of Human Rights, which is
   binding  for all courts in Russia. The European Human Rights Court has
   repeatedly  clarified  that  in  order  to provide fair trial national
   courts  have  to  "define  with sufficient clarity the basis, on which
   they are issuing their judgments" (motivated judgment guarantee) (ref.
   Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no.
   252  para  33;  Van  de  Hurk v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19 April
   1994,  Series  A no. 288 at para 61; Hiro Balani v. Spain, judgment of
   09  December  1994,  Series  A  no.  303-B at para 28; Ruiz Toroija v.
   Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no.303-A, at para 30). If
   the  court  has  based its decisions on articles of the Convention, it
   was bound to "correspondingly examine the given reasons, arguments and
   evidence"  (Kraska v. Switzerland, judgment of 19 April 1993, Series A
   no.  254-B).  In  connection  to the aforesaid the court's actions, by
   which it refused to assess the one and only argument of the Applicant,
   based  on  the  Convention  and considering her legal capacity to take
   legal  action, do not conform with its obligations to provide for fair
   trial as stipulated in 1 of Article 6 of the Convention.

   Thus there was misapplication of procedural law, namely, Articles 2, 3
   and   6  the  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and
   Fundamental  Freedoms  as  they  are interpreted in the abovementioned
   judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as a part of the legal
   framework  of  Russian Federation, which led to wrong resolving of the
   issue  about  legal  capacity of the Applicant and direct violation of
   the rights described in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection
   of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

   On the basis of article 364 of the Code of Civil Procedure

   I APPEAL:

   to  cancel  the  decision  of  the Supreme Court of Russian Federation
   dated May, 16 2011.

   Enclosed:  a  copy  of  this private complaint, a copy of the decision
   dated  May, 16 2011, returned documents (including a copy of the power
   of attorney), claim for reinstatement of period of appeal (18 sheets).

   June, 25 2011.

Ссылки

   1. http://sutyajnik.ru/documents/3184.pdf


Если вы хотите поддержать нашу деятельность, то введите в поле ниже сумму в рублях, которую вы готовы пожертвовать и кликните кнопку рядом:

рублей.      


Поделиться в социальных сетях:

  Diaspora*

Комментарии:

Добавить комментарий:

Ваше имя или ник:

(Войти? Зарегистрироваться? Забыли пароль? Войти под OpenID?)

Ваш e-mail (не обязателен, если укажете - будет опубликован на сайте):

Ваш комментарий:

Введите цифры и буквы с картинки (защита от спам-роботов):