{"id":17738,"date":"2022-01-11T17:22:38","date_gmt":"2022-01-11T17:22:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=17738"},"modified":"2022-01-11T17:22:38","modified_gmt":"2022-01-11T17:22:38","slug":"case-of-uspanov-and-others-v-russia-european-court-of-human-rights-48053-06-and-7-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=17738","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF USPANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 48053\/06 and 7 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF USPANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 48053\/06 and 7 others)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\n(Revision)
\nSTRASBOURG
\n11 January 2022<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Uspanov and Others v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 9\u00a0February 2021),<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Darian Pavli, President,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nPeeter Roosma, judges,
\nand Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2021,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in eight applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by thirteen Russian nationals (\u201cthe applicants\u201d). Their names and other details, as well as dates of lodging of each application, are specified in the judgment delivered on 9\u00a0February 2021.<\/p>\n

2. In that judgment, the Court held, among other things, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants\u2019 ill-treatment and the lack of effective investigation, and of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the use of confessions obtained under duress in the applicants\u2019 respective convictions. The Court also decided to award each of the applicants in application no. 21123\/09 (Vitrigov and Others v. Russia) 67,600\u00a0euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 3,000 jointly for costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicants\u2019 representative, and dismissed the remainder of their claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

3. On 5 March 2021 the applicants\u2019 representative in application no.\u00a021123\/09 informed the Court that he had learned that one of the applicants, Mr Ayub Tuntuyev, had died on 12\u00a0March 2019, and that his wife, Ms Khedi Rasuyeva, wished to pursue the application. He accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

4. On 30 March 2021 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the Government three weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 26 May 2021.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION<\/p>\n

5. The applicants\u2019 representative requested revision of the judgment of 9\u00a0February 2021, which he had been unable to have executed because Mr\u00a0Ayub Tuntuyev had died before the judgment had been adopted. Ms\u00a0Khedi Rasuyeva was the heir and should therefore receive the sum awarded to the deceased.<\/p>\n

6. The Government stated that the applicant Mr Ayub Tuntuyev died on 12\u00a0March 2019, which is about two years before the judgment date, but neither the applicant\u2019s representative nor his heir had informed the Court in this regard. The applicants failed to cooperate fully with the Court.<\/p>\n

7. Referring to its previously examined requests for revision (see Cang\u00f6z and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 7469\/06, \u00a7 9, 19\u00a0September\u00a02017; M.\u00a0\u00d6zel and Others v. Turkey (revision), nos. 14350\/05 and 2 others, \u00a7 8, 31\u00a0March 2020; and Volchkova and Mironov v. Russia (revision), nos.\u00a045668\/05 and 2292\/06, 9 March 2021), the Court finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require it to depart from its findings in those cases. It finds it unnecessary to draw any inferences from the failure to inform the Court at an earlier stage about the demise of the applicant.<\/p>\n

8. The Court notes from the documents that Ms Khedi Rasuyeva is the wife of the late applicant, Mr Ayub Tuntuyev.<\/p>\n

9. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that Ms Khedi Rasuyeva has standing to receive the sum awarded in the judgment in her husband\u2019s stead. She has expressed her intention to do so and requested that the judgment be revised.<\/p>\n

10. The Court considers that the judgment of 9\u00a0February 2021 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide:<\/p>\n

\u201cA party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court … to revise that judgment.<\/p>\n

…\u201d<\/p>\n

11. It accordingly decides to award Ms Khedi Rasuyeva the amount it previously awarded to the deceased applicant Mr Ayub Tuntuyev, namely EUR 67,600 (sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

12. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to revise its judgment Uspanov and Others v. Russia of 9\u00a0February 2021 as regards application Vitrigov and Others v. Russia (no.\u00a021123\/09) in so far as it concerns the application of Article 41 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

2. Holds, accordingly<\/p>\n

(a) that the respondent State is to pay to Mr Ayub Tuntuyev\u2019s heir, Ms\u00a0Khedi Rasuyeva, within three months, EUR 67,600 (sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;<\/p>\n

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Olga Chernishova \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n

Facebook<\/a>Twitter<\/a>LinkedIn<\/a>Pinterest<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

THIRD SECTION CASE OF USPANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 48053\/06 and 7 others) JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 11 January 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Uspanov and Others…<\/p>\n

Read more →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17738","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-available-in-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17738","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17738"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17738\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17739,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17738\/revisions\/17739"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}