The ECHR ordered Russia to pay 63,000 euros in the case concerning forced disappearance in Chechnya

Today the ECHR delivered its judgment in case of Beksultanova v. Russia and ordered Russia to pay 63,000 euros for numerous violations of the Convention.

The case concerned the alleged forced disappearance of the applicant’s son by Russian state agents. The applicant claimed that her son had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities in October 2004 and had since disappeared. She also alleged that her son had been abducted and killed by Russian state agents during an unacknowledged security operation in Chechnya and that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of her son.

Analysis of the ECHR judgment in the YUKOS case

On 20 September 2011 the ECHR delivered its judgment with respect to the YUKOS case. Overall, the judgment gives an impression that the majority of the ECHR judges tried to make it balanced,[1] so that either party could be satisfied with the results of the hearings. Considering the parties’ response to the judgment, the judges have succeeded in their efforts.

Nominally, the judgment may be divided into two parts: YUKOS’ “victory” and the Russian Government’s “victory.” Below is my detailed analysis of both parts.

The ECHR judgment in the case of YUKOS

Today the ECHR delivered its Chamber judgment in the YUKOS case. The Court held that the proceedings against YUKOS were not politically motivated and that YUKOS was not treated differently from other companies, however, it found that the Russian government had violated YUKOS’ rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The Court held:

1. By six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair trial) of the Convention as regards the 2000 Tax Assessment proceedings on account of the insufficient time available to the applicant company for preparation of the case at first instance and on appeal;

2. By four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the 2000-2001 Tax Assessments in the part relating to the imposition and calculation of penalties;

3. Unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the rest of the 2000-2003 Tax Assessments;

4. Unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning whether YUKOS has been treated differently from other companies;

5. By five votes to two that there has been a violation of YUKOS’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the enforcement proceedings against it in that the domestic authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the legitimate aim of these proceedings and the measures employed;

6. Unanimously that there has been no violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restriction on rights), taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning whether the Russian authorities had misused the legal proceedings to destroy YUKOS and seize its assets;

7. Unanimously that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) is not ready for decision and reserves the said question in whole.

Awaiting the ending of YUKOS saga in the ECHR

Tomorrow the ECHR will publish its judgment with regard to the YUKOS case. YUKOS alleged that Russia violated Article 6 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 1, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention, and Article 7 of the Convention. YUKOS claimed for damages amounting to over USD 98 billion. In anticipation of tomorrow’s judgment I would like to recap the key facts of this case and the results of the Court’s admissibility decision.[1]

The YUKOS case was originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court on 23 April 2004 shortly after YUKOS was targeted by the Russian authorities with tax and enforcement proceedings, which eventually led to its liquidation. The application was declared by the Court partly admissible on 29 January 2009. The Court held hearings on the merits on 4 March 2010 at 2:30 pm.

Independent Monitoring of Court Proceedings in Russia

According to a post published yesterday at www.hro.org, on 13 September 2011 the Center of International Protection, a Russian non-governmental organisation, came forward with an initiative to conduct independent monitoring of court proceedings in Russia. Karinna Moskalenko, the head of the Center, points out that:

Everybody is constantly complaining about Russian courts and violation of the right to a fair trial.[1] In this regard, we are talking about monitoring as a possible form and method of revealing systemic problems of Russian justice. It is useful for the judges to look at themselves from the outside. And not only for judges, but also for attorneys. With the help of this monitoring trial participants will be able to see themselves as in a mirror. And this is indeed interesting. [Translation from Russian into English is made by me. See this quote in Russian at]

To conduct the monitoring of court trials observers will visit various Russian courts during one week and report the results of their observations. After having been processed, the results of the monitoring will be published by the Center.

Russia’s compliance with ECHR judgments

Execution of ECHR judgments, especially those that require a state to prevent similar violations in the future, is of high importance for establishing the rule of law in a respondent state. In this post I would like to discuss Russia’s compliance with the Court’s judgments. Below is a brief analysis on this subject. [Please note that most links on this post are in Russian.]