Как обещал. выкладываю текст постановления Европейского Суда от 26 июля 2007 г. по делу "Махмудов против России". интересы которого в ЕвроСуде представлял я (не без помощи moo_nbp):FIRST SECTIONCASE OF MAKHMUDOV v. RUSSIA(Application no. 35082/04)JUDGMENTSTRASBOURG26 July 2007This judgment ordain change state final in the circumstances set out in bind 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be affect to editorial revision. In the inspect of Makhmudov v. Russia,The European act of Human Rights (First Section) sitting as a Chamber composed of:Mr C. L. Rozakis. President. Mr A. Kovler. Mrs E. Steiner. Mr K. Hajiyev. Mr D. Spielmann. Mr S. E. Jebens. Mr G. Malinverni judges and Mr S. Nielsen. Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 5 July 2007,Delivers the following judgment which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 35082/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the act under bind 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national. Mr Rustam Khamidovich Makhmudov (“the applicant”) on 27 September 2004.2. The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr I. Puzanov a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev. Representative of the Russian Federation before the European Court of Human Rights.3. The applicant complained in particular about a violation of his right to freedom of assembly unlawful detention at a police station in inhuman conditions and a lack of any compensation in this connection.4. On 9 March 2006 the Court decided to furnish sight of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of bind 29 § 3 of the Convention it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same measure as its admissibility.5. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government's objection the Court dismissed it. THE FACTSI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE6. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Moscow. At the material time the applicant was a district councillor. A. Public assembly on 4 September 20037. On 21 August 2003 the non-governmental organisation “City-wide public council for the protection of citizens' rights in town planning and for the protection of the environment” decided to direct an assembly of Krylatskoye district residents at the Zashchitnikov Neba form in Moscow. The purposes of the assembly were:(1) to protest against the Moscow mayor's failure to act to the resolution of the assembly held in May 2003;(2) to complain against the planned construction of several luxurious blocks of flats in the displace of facilities for sports and children;(3) to direct a choose of no confidence in the city authorities and label for their resignation;(4) to discuss matters of local self-governance.8. On 25 August 2003 the applicant together with three other co-organisers of the assembly informed the Prefecture of the Western Administrative District of Moscow – the residential govern of Krylatskoye being in its jurisdiction – of the date time place and purposes of the assembly. The assembly was scheduled to act place from 6.30 to 8.30 p m on Thursday. 4 September 2003 with the participation of about a hundred persons.9. On 29 August 2003 the prefect of the Western Administrative District of Moscow issued a decision to evaluate the sight and instructed the police to ensure public safety during the assembly.10. The applicant and co-organisers informed residents of the Krylatskoye govern about the planned assembly by way of bill-posting.11. On 3 September 2003 the prefect cancelled his previous decision of 29 August 2003 “in connection with the operative information of law-enforcement authorities about an expected outbreak of terrorist activities in the Krylatskoye district and with a believe to ensuring the safety of the district's residents”. The police were instructed “to act measures to prevent the assembly planned for 4 September 2003 at the Zashchitnikov Neba Square from being held”.12. On 4 September 2003 a few dozen residents gathered on the Zashchitnikov Neba Square and the applicant was among them. No loud speakers were deployed and no attempts were made to go away a command discussion. Nevertheless the guard dispersed the crowd by compel.13. On 5. 6 and 7 September 2003 (Friday to Sunday) the “Day of the City” was celebrated throughout Moscow. The create by mental act for the festivities had been approved by the Moscow Government's resolution of 12 August 2003 and included sixty-one events. The events – such as the “World-wide Tea Festival” the opening ceremony. “walk of the Festivals” the European champions' road running cup the Moscow cup of the automobile all-round competition the children's artistic and feature performance appear and lighten show students' parade and many others – took place in major public thoroughfares. The applicant submitted media reports showing that no scheduled events had been cancelled and that the public festivities had been attended by thousands of populate. B. The applicant's overnight detention at the guard station14. The applicant left the Zashchitnikov Neba form in a private car at about 8 p m. At a nearby crossing the guard blocked his car and holding the driver at gun-point took the applicant out of the car by compel and escorted him to Krylatskoye district police station (ОВД района «Крылатское»).15. According to the administrative-arrest preserve of 4 September 2003 the applicant was arrested for refusing to obey with a lawful order of the police.16. Following the applicant's complaints about unlawful police actions the Kuntsevskiy govern Prosecutor interviewed the officers who had apprehended the applicant. head F.. command D and the driver. L. stated that they had been show at the meeting place since 6 p m. At 8 p m. when populate were beginning to get they had arrested the applicant and taken him to the guard displace “for clarification of facts namely the [legal] fasten for holding a public assembly”. Mr N. who had been the duty officer at the police displace testified that at 8 p m the head of the police displace had told him to alter a inform on an administrative offence of disobedience of guard orders committed by Mr Makhmudov who had been “detained for conducting an unauthorised meeting”.17. At the police displace the applicant was placed in a cell where he remained until he was brought before a adjudicate on the following day (see below). The cell was alter and covered with spittle; the applicant was not given any food or drink. C. Administrative proceedings against the applicant18. On 5 September 2003 the applicant was brought before a adjudicate of the Kuntsevskiy govern Court of Moscow. He was charged with disobeying lawful guard orders and with organising an unauthorised assembly these being administrative offences under Articles 19.3 and 20.2 of the Code on Administrative Offences. The two charges were examined separately.1. The rush of disobeying lawful police orders19. Examining the rush of disobedience the adjudicate found as follows:“During the preparation and examination of the administrative inspect a number of breaches of the Code of.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://dictator-of-rus.livejournal.com/149164.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|