Петиция в поддержку требований, выдвинутых Надеждой Толоконниковой в заявлении о голодовке/ Petition in support of the demands made by Nadezhda Tolokonnikova in her declaration of hunger strike

Уважаемые читатели,

На этой неделе в средствах массовой информации было опубликовано письмо Надежды Толоконниковой (заключенной участницы российской панк-группы Пусси Райот). В своем письме Надежда описывает бесчеловечные и унижающие достоинство человека условия пребывания в Исправительной Колонии №14. В частности, она заявляет, что заключенные женщины подвергаются рабскому обращению и принудительному труду, работая по 17 часов в день на швейном производстве по изготовлению формы для полицейских. Наказания за невыполнение нормы включают запрет на употребление пищи, запрет на отпраление естественных нужд и гигиены, стояние на морозе. По словам Надежды, в ее адрес поступали угрозы убийством или физической расправы от заместителя начальника этой колонии.

Вы можете прочитать письмо Надежды на русском языке, перейдя по ссылке. 

В результате Надежда объявила голодовку в ответ на ужасные условия пребывания в Исправительной Колонии № 14. Она готова продолжать голодовку до тех пор, пока администрация колонии не удовлетворит ее требования.

Вы можете помочь Надежде, подписав петицию в поддержку ее требований, адресованную Директору ФСИН РФ. Для этого пройдите по ссылке. 

Dear readers,

This week Nadezhda Tolokonnikova (a jailed member of the Russian Punk Band Pussy Riot) released a letter to mass media where she describes inhuman and degrading conditions and treatment at Correctional Colony No. 14. In particular, she claims that female inmates are treated like slaves and are subject to forced labour working 17 hours per day sewing police uniforms. Punishments for failing to meet the quotas included denial of food, prevention from using a bathroom, standing outside in the cold. Nadezhda also claims she was threatened with death or violence by the Deputy Chief of this colony.

You can read her letter in English by clicking the link. 

As a result, Nadezhda launched a hunger strike to protest against such horrible conditions in Correctional Colony No.14. She will continue the strike until her concerns are addressed.  

You can help Nadezhda by signing a petition in support of her demands addressed to the Director of the Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation. To do so, please visit the link. 

ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЕ СУДЫ: юридический блог о праве Европейского Союза и судебной практике ЕСПЧ

Уважаемые читатели,

Я хотела бы познакомить вас с правовым блогом EUROPEAN COURTS (Европейские Суды), созданным в 2013 году Марком де Вердом, судьей Апелляционного Суда Амстердама (Нидерланды). Основными читателями и участниками блога являются судьи и юристы из Европы. Блог является своего рода платформой для обмена знаниями, опытом и идеями в области права Европейского Союза и практики Европейского Суда по Правам Человека. Цель блога состоит в том, чтобы укрепить сотрудничество и достичь взаимопонимание среди Европейских судей и юристов.

Участие судей и юристов из России в дискуссиях указанного блога более чем приветствуется. Если у вас есть интересные идеи и вы хотели бы опубликовать свою статью на сайте блога EUROPEAN COURTS, присылайте их на адрес электронной почты блога europeancourts@gmail.com или на мой адрес sg492@georgetown.edu (в случае владения только русским языком). Хотя использование русского языка при написании статей допускается, желательно их готовить на английском языке.

Кстати, сегодня была опубликована моя статья на сайте указанного блога с названием «Российская панк-группа Пусси Райот идет в Страсбург: песня в тональности мажор или минор?» Вы можете ознакомиться с содержанием моей статьи, пройдя по ссылке. 

ENGLISH VERSION:

EUROPEAN COURTS: EU and ECHR Law Blog

Dear readers,

I would like to introduce you to a law blog EUROPEAN COURTS created in 2013 by Marc de Werd, Justice in the Amsterdam Court of Appeal in the Netherlands. The main readers and participants of this blog are European judges and lawyers. This blog is a platform of exchange of knowledge, experience and ideas in the field of EU law and the ECHR case law. The objective of the blog is future cooperation and a better understanding among European judges and lawyers.

Russian judges and lawyers are more than welcome to participate in the discussions of this blog. If you have interesting ideas and would like to publish a post in the EUROPEAN COURTS law blog, you may send them to europeancourts@gmail.com or to my e-mail sg492@georgetown.edu (in case you know only Russian). It is desirable to draft your posts in English, though writing in Russian is also permitted.

By the way, today my post titled “Russian punk band Pussy Riot goes to Strasbourg: a song in major or minor?” was published in this blog. You can read it by clicking the link.  

Call for Applications – 2nd Martens Summer School on International Law

For the second time Martens Summer School on International Law organizes lectures devoted to comparative aspects of international law and human rights. A particular focus will be on issues related to Russia and Eastern Europe.  

Dates: 28 July – 2 August 2013

Location: Pärnu College, Estonia

The topics and lecturers will be the following:

· Professor Bill Bowring (Birkbeck College, London) “Litigating Russian Cases in the European Court of Human Rights”

· Professor Eduard Ivanov (Higher School of Economics, Moscow), “International Law and the Problem of Terrorism”

· Judge Angelika Nußberger (European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg), “The Protection of Social and Economic Rights in Europe”

· Associate Professor René Värk (University of Tartu), “Challenges and Developments in International Humanitarian Law”

Each lecturer will present 5 lectures over 5 days of the week.

Professor Lauri Mälksoo (University of Tartu) will hold the Annual Lecture at the festive reception on 29 July, and will address newest research about the life and work of Friendrich Fromhold von Martens (1845 – 1909), the world-known Tsarist Russian international law expert.

Deadline for applications is 4 June 2013.

For more information on eligibility requirements, application process and study fees please visit the link.

American families challenge the Dima Yakovlev Law in the European Court of Human Rights

On 22 January 2013, four American families submitted an application to the ECHR asking the Court for urgent communication of their application to the Russian Government. All applicants were in the process of adopting Russian children, but could not finalize it due to enactment of the Dima Yakovlev Law by Russia, prohibiting US citizens from adopting Russian orphans. The applicants claim that by passing this Law Russia violated several Articles of the Convention. They also asked the ECHR to order the Russian Government to amend the respective legislation.

Each of the applicants claim that they had already established relationships with the orphans, and that the children had started calling their future adoptive parents “mom” and “dad.” For these reasons, according to the applicants’ attorneys, each of their applicants have formed a family with these children even without having official authorization from domestic courts for adoption. In the applicants’ view, the Dima Yakovlev Law violates their right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the Convention), since it impedes them to be with their future adoptive children.

Further, the applicants claim that this Law contradicts Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. The applicants also argue that they had no effective remedy to contest the Dima Yakovlev Law in Russia, referring to violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. Though, it will be rather challenging to prove this, since the applicants did not try to apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to claim unconstitutionality of this Law. It is likely that the Russian Government will use this argument to contest exhaustion of all domestic remedies by the applicants before lodging their application with the ECHR.

The Dima Yakovlev Law was named after a Russian boy, Dima Yakovlev, who was adopted by Miles Harrison, a US citizen. In July 2008 Dima died, when his adoptive father had left him in a car in boiling heat for about nine hours. The Dima Yakovlev Law was Russia’s response to enactment of the Magnitsky Bill in the United States that imposes certain financial sanctions on Russian officials allegedly responsible for the death of Russian lawyer Sergey Magnitsky and prohibits their entrance to the United States. 

Recent update: On 28 January 2013 the ECHR considered the application of the American families. On 29 January 2013 the complaint was communicated to the Russian Government. The Court asked the Russian authorities to reply to this application no later than 18 February 2013. 

The use of force by the Russian military and the violation of property rights

On 15 January 2012, the ECHR found Russia responsible for destruction of property in Chechnya during an exchange of fire between the Russian military and illegal armed groups in the case of Miltayev and Meltayeva v. Russia. This judgment contradicts conclusions of the domestic courts on the same matter as to the absence of State responsibility.

Both applicants ran a private photo laboratory in Chechnya. In 2001, a skirmish took place between the military and illegal armed groups, and the building where the applicants rented a room for their business was set on fire. As a result, their photo laboratory was destroyed. Reports of the local fire service and other commissions that inspected the site right after the attack indicated that the shelling was the cause of the fire. This fact was also confirmed by documents from the criminal investigation. Eye-witness statements pointed at shooting from a tank as a cause of the fire.

Regardless of the evidence submitted by the applicants to the domestic courts, the latter dismissed their compensation claims against the Russian Ministry of Defense due to the following reasons. First, in the courts’ view the Ministry had acted lawfully, since military operations in Chechnya were authorized by respective Presidential and Governmental Decrees. Second, the applicants had not presented evidence confirming that their property had been destroyed by a “source of increased danger” owned by State agents. The ECHR found the domestic courts’ decisions “arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable” and “irreconcilable with the body of evidence submitted by the applicants.”

In the Court’s view, the evidence presented by the applicants was sufficient to determine the existence of Russia’s interference with their property. The Russian Government did not argue as to the lawfulness, legitimate aim or proportionality of the interference with the applicants’ property. Further, according to the ECHR, the Russian laws that released State agents participating in a counter-terrorist operation from any liability for damage caused are formulated in vague and general terms and cannot serve as a sufficient legal basis for the destruction of an individual’s property. In this respect, the ECHR found that Russia violated the applicants’ right to respect their property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention).

However, the Court dismissed the applicants’ just satisfaction claims, since the applicants failed to submit their claims to the ECHR within the time-limit after the communication of their complaint to the Russian Government.