""

" ( 12804/12) - "


Decision of the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Case .KAC11-441, 30 August 2011 to leave decision of the Judgeof the SupremeCourt of RussianFederation datedMay 16, 2011 unchanged, andprivate complaint ofBugrovaLadaStanislavovna-without satisfaction.

 

30.08.2011

 

                    Supreme Court of Russian Federation

                                                       Case No..KAC11-441

                                  DECISION

   Moscow  August 30, 2011

   Cassation  Board  of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation headed by
   chairman Manokhina G.V.,

   Board members: Korchashkina T.E., Merkulova V. P.

   considered  in  public  court  session  materials  of  Bugrova's  Lada
   Stanislavovna Complaint, challenging item 11 of Statement on allowance
   conditions  of people detained for administrative offence, nutritional
   standards  and  medical  services  of  these  people  provided  by the
   resolution  of  the government of Russian Federation dated October 15,
   2003 No. 627.

   Considering the private complaint of the Applicant against judgment of
   the  Supreme  Court  of  Russian  Federation  dated May 16, 2011 which
   denied the Applicant in consideration of the application (item 1, part
   1, article 134 Code of Civil Procedure of Russian Federation).

   Having  listened  to  the report  of the Judge of the Supreme Court of
   Russian Federation Manokhina G.V.

   the Cassation Board determined:

   Bugrova  L. S. appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
   with   the   application   in   which   she requested   the court   to
   declare invalid provisions  of item  11 in  part  setting the norms of
   the area for one detainee at least 2sq. m, she refers to the fact that
   in October 7, 2010 her husband, Bugrov Michael Yurjevich was placed in
   the cell  for administrative  detainees  of  the  Octyabrsky  District
   Office  of  the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Yekaterinburg the area
   of which is 8.6 square meters.

   As   there   were 7   people   in   the  cell a  fight which  resulted
   in Bugrov M.Y. death occured.
   On May  16,  2011 the Judge of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation
   refused to     accept     the     claim as     subject    not to    be
   considered and resolved  in civil proceedings (item 1 Part 1, art. 134
   of Code of Civil Procedure Code).

   In  a  private complaint   the  applicant's  representative raised the
   issue   of cancellation   of   the  decision  of  the  Judge, pointing
   out that Bugrova L.  S., as the wife of the deceased, is recognized an
   indirect  victim and  has  a  right  to appeal for the legal action in
   defense of her husband's rights.

   Having      discussed      the      arguments      of the      private
   complaint, Cassation Board    has no    reason for    cancellation the
   decision.

   As   follows from  Bugrova's  application  addressed  to the  court of
   primary jurisdiction, Bugrova L. S. asked the court to declare item 11
   of    the    Statement invalid to    protect    the    rights of   the
   deceased husband.

   According  to the European Human Rights Court, the statement indicated
   that  she  is  recognized an implicit victim and is allowed succession
   and  has  the  right  to  apply to the court for the protection of the
   violated rights of the victim - the immediate victim.

   Under   Art. 44 of  Russian  Federation Code  of  Civil  Procedure the
   court allows the  replacement by  a  successor in case of the death of
   the person.  Succession is possible at any stage of civil proceedings.

   Based  on  this  article,  procedural succession occurs in cases where
   the rights    or    obligations of    one   of the   subjects   of the
   controversial material   issues by  virtue  of legal or  other reasons
   transfers to another person.

   The  Judge came  to  the  correct conclusion that  in  this case,  the
   provisions of   Article   44 of   Russian   Federation Code  of  Civil
   Procedure,      which     allows procedural succession, may     not be
   applicable because   the   applicant disputes   the provisions  of the
   normative legal act, by which the succession to the extent required by
   law, is prohibited.

   In  these  circumstances  the  Judge  had  legal  rights  to  deny the
   application on  the  basis  of item 1 Part 1 of Art. 134 Code of Civil
   Procedure of Russian Federation.
   Reference  to  the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights does
   not deny the decision of the Judge.

   Under  art. 374 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,
   the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

   established:

   to   leave   decision   of   the   Judge of   the   Supreme Court   of
   Russian Federation dated May 16, 2011 unchanged, and private complaint
   of Bugrova Lada Stanislavovna - without satisfaction.


, , :

.      


:

  Diaspora*

:

:

:

(? ? ? OpenID?)

e-mail ( , - ):

:

( -):

        

 

 

15.05.2015. "" .