{"id":2485,"date":"2019-04-28T11:15:23","date_gmt":"2019-04-28T11:15:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=2485"},"modified":"2019-11-05T05:22:42","modified_gmt":"2019-11-05T05:22:42","slug":"case-of-valyuzhenich-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=2485","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF VALYUZHENICH v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF VALYUZHENICH v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 10597\/13)<\/em><\/p>\n

JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n26 March 2019<\/p>\n

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article\u00a044 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Valyuzhenich v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
\nBranko Lubarda,
\nHelen Keller,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides,
\nJolien Schukking,
\nMar\u00eda El\u00f3segui, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2019,<\/p>\n

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

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

1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 10597\/13) 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 a Russian national, Mr Mikhail AleksandrovichValyuzhenich (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 5 February 2013.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr M.Valeyev, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant alleged, in particular,that his confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him had amounted to degrading treatment and rendered the proceedings unfair, and that he had not had an effective domestic remedyin respect of the first grievance.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 November 2014notice of the above complaints was given to the Government under Articles 3 and 13 and Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01, 2 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissiblepursuant to Rule\u00a054\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

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

I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1985 and is currently detained in St\u00a0Petersburg.<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0He was suspected of involvement in large-scale drug dealing.<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0On 2\u00a0February 2011 he was arrested. He remained in custody pending the investigation and trial.<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0On 6\u00a0October 2011 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan (\u201cthe District Court\u201d) received the casefile and set the trial date for 19\u00a0October 2011.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0On 19\u00a0March 2012 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine and a half years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0\u00a0During the trial, which consisted of sixteen hearings, the applicant was confined in a metal cage in the courtroom. There was no desk inside the cage, only a wooden bench, which made it impossible for him to take notes during the hearings. Armed security guards remained beside the cage dock. The applicant\u2019s lawyer could only approach him with the court\u2019s permission. Any conversations between them had to take place in the presence of the guards.<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0\u00a0On 10\u00a0August 2012 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld the applicant\u2019s conviction on appeal. Theapplicant participated in the hearing by videoconference. He was placed behind a floor-to-ceiling metal partition on the premises of the remand prison SIZO-3 of the TatarstanRepublic where he was detained and communicated with the judges via a video link.<\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0Metal cages in courtrooms<\/strong><\/p>\n

12.\u00a0\u00a0For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice and relevant international material and practice, see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia([GC], nos.\u00a032541\/08 and 43441\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a053-66 and \u00a7\u00a7\u00a070-76, ECHR\u00a02014 (extracts)).<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0Metal cages in remand prisons for participation in court hearings via a video link<\/strong><\/p>\n

13.\u00a0\u00a0Remand prisons are equipped with videoconferencing systems within the framework of the Federal Targeted Programme\u201cThe Development of the Judicial System in Russia for 2013-2020\u201d.<\/p>\n

14.\u00a0\u00a0In accordance with theProgramme, on 18 April 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Administrative Office of Courts at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Federal Prison Service concluded an agreement concerning their use of videoconferencing systems. Annex 2 to that agreement providedfor the installation of metal partitions in remand prisons equipped with videoconferencing systems tosecure the videoconferencing equipment while inmates participatedin court hearings via a video link.<\/p>\n

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

I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES3AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that his confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him had amounted to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n

He further complained that he had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of his grievance under Article\u00a03, contrary to Article\u00a013 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n

16.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered that the applicant\u2019s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial which had ended on 19\u00a0March 2012 and his placement behind a metal partition in the remand prison five months later, on 10\u00a0August 2012, for the purposes of participating, via a video link, in the appeal hearing of his criminal case did not give rise to a \u201ccontinuing situation\u201d and that therefore the part of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning his caging during the trial should be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit provided for by Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

17.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant argued that the sixteen hearings of his case by the trial court between 19\u00a0October 2011 and 19 March 2012 and the hearing of his case on appeal on 10\u00a0August 2012 should be viewed as a \u201ccontinuing situation\u201d, which had only ended on the latter date with the last instance of his having been confined in the metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him.<\/p>\n

18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that, as a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Where it is clear from the outset however that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant. In cases featuring a continuing situation, the six-month period runs from the cessation of that situation.The concept of a \u201ccontinuing situation\u201d refers to a state of affairs which operates by continuous activities by or on the part of the State to render the applicant a victim (see Svinarenko and Slyadnevv. Russia [GC], nos. 32541\/08 and 43441\/08, \u00a7\u00a086, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a072 and 75, 10\u00a0January 2012, with further references).<\/p>\n

19.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has previously found that the applicants\u2019 repetitive confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial amounted to a \u201ccontinuing situation\u201d in the absence of any marked variation in the way they appeared before the trial court (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev,cited above, \u00a7\u00a086).However, in a situation where the applicant appeared before the trial court first in a metal cage and subsequently in a glass cage, the Court has held that the significant change in material conditions of the applicant\u2019s appearance before the trial court prevented it from regarding the situation as \u201ccontinuous\u201d for the purpose of calculating the six-month time\u2011limit set forth in Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention (see YaroslavBelousovv.\u00a0Russia, nos. 2653\/13 and 60980\/14, \u00a7\u00a0114, 4\u00a0October 2016).<\/p>\n

20.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the applicant was confined in a metal cage in the courtroom on sixteen occasions between 19\u00a0October 2011 and 19 March 2012 when his criminal case was being examined by the trial court and on one occasion, on 10\u00a0August 2012, in the remand prison during the examination of his case on appeal via a videolink. The Court notes the absence of any significant change in the way the applicant appeared before the trial and appellate courts for as long as the proceedings lasted \u2013 on each occasion hefound himself behind metal bars. The Court concludes, therefore, that regardless of an almost five-month time gap between the end of the applicant\u2019s trial on 19\u00a0March 2012 and the examination of his case on appeal on 10\u00a0August 2012, his confinement in a metal cage created a \u201ccontinuous situation\u201d for the purpose of calculating the six-month time-limit set forth in Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.Since the application was lodged on 5\u00a0February 2013, the applicant has thus complied with the six-month rule and the Government\u2019s objection should therefore be dismissed.<\/p>\n

21.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant\u2019s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n

22.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted thatthe applicant\u2019s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroomduring the trial and behind a metal partition during the examination of the case on appeal had been in compliance with the domestic law and regulationsin force at the material time (see paragraphs12-14above).The practice of placing defendants in metal cages in the courtroom was an ordinary security measure applied to all defendants detained on remand.Introduced over twenty years ago, it was perceived as customary by the parties to the criminal proceedings and third parties alike and a prioriwas not aimed at humiliating those to whom it was applied. The \u201cfeelings of humiliation, inferiority, shame and helplessness\u201d allegedly suffered by the applicant resulted not from his placement in a metal cage, but rather from a natural reaction to the negative consequences of his unlawful actions. There were no grounds for believing that the parties to the proceedings and third parties had had a biased or hostile attitude towards the applicant on account of his confinement in a metal cage. In any event, the case had not been of any heightened public or media interest. Furthermore, placement in a metal cage served the purpose of protecting a person from any possible attack by victims while at the same time allowing him or herto choose a comfortable posture and move behind the barriers freely.The Government further argued that the applicant\u2019s confinement behind a metal partition in the remand prison during his participation in the hearing of his case on appeal via a video link could not have caused him any negative feelings since,in any event,the remand prison was a place of social isolation where detainees spent most of their time on premises equipped with various safety facilities. TheGovernment concluded, therefore, that there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case. They made no submissions on the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant argued that the domestic regulations referred to by the Government were of restricted use and therefore unavailable in any official sources of legal information.He had had no criminal record, had been charged with non-violent crimes and had demonstrated orderly behaviour throughout the proceedings. His placement in the cage could not therefore have been justified. Furthermore, the proceedingshad beenfollowed by several journalists and several television channels had released news reports on the trial. For example, the \u201cKZN\u201dtelevisionchannel had released a news report entitled \u201cSentence to Drug Dealers\u201d showing him in a metal cage. This report had been viewed by several thousands of people even before the conviction had become final. Showing him in a cage had created an image of an extremely dangerous criminal, which had caused him feelings of shame and helplessness. The applicant further submitted that, contrary to the Government\u2019s assertions, he had not been free to choose a comfortable position or move around the cage: he could not stand up or have any exchange with other participants of the proceedings unless authorised by the presiding judge. Besides, as could be seen from the photographs provided by the Government, the cage had been very limited in size,which had made it impossible to get into a comfortable position. Lastly, the applicant submitted that his confinement behind a metal barrier in the remand prison for his participation via a video link in the examination of his case on appeal had not been warranted by any security risks or courtroom order issues. The applicant further maintained his complaint under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0Article 3 of the Convention<\/p>\n

24.\u00a0\u00a0For a summary of the relevant general principles, see Svinarenko and Slyadnev (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0113-18).<\/p>\n

25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates its earlier findings, where it came to the conclusion that holding a person in a metal cage in the courtroomconstituted in itself \u2013 having regard to its objectively degrading nature, which is incompatible with the standards of civilised behaviour that are the hallmark of a democratic society \u2013 an affront to human dignity, and amounted to degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court\u2019s conclusions concerned both the applicants\u2019 confinementin metal cages in courtrooms during their personal attendance at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0122-39; Urazov v. Russia, no.\u00a042147\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 82-83, 14 June 2016; and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a059655\/14 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a031, 31\u00a0January 2017), and their confinement in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via a video link (see Karachentsev v. Russia, no.\u00a023229\/11<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a050-54, 17\u00a0April 2018).<\/p>\n

26.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the present case and having examined the parties\u2019 arguments, the Court does not see any reason to depart from its findings in the cases cited above in this regard. It follows, therefore, that the applicant\u2019s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial and at the remand prison for the purposes of his participation via a video link in the judicial examination of his criminal case on appeal amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of that provision.<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0Article 13 of the Convention<\/p>\n

27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that in view of its reasoning and findings under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 24-26above), there is no need to deal separately with the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

28.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that his confinement in a metal cage during the trial hadrendered the criminal proceedings against him unfair. In particular, he alleged that the principle of the presumption of innocence had not been respected and that he had not been afforded an opportunity to take notes and to confer with his lawyer in private.He relied on Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01, 2 and 3\u00a0(b) and (c) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0In the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing …<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights …<\/p>\n

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;<\/p>\n

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require …\u201d<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n

29.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies with regard to his complaints under Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention. They noted, in particular, that he had not raised these issues either in the course of the trial or before the appellate court.<\/p>\n

30.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has previously held in a similar context that the appeal instance was capable of providing an effective remedy for the alleged violation of Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a01 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention (see StepanZimin v. Russia, no.\u00a063686\/13, 60894\/14<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a062, 30 January 2018, and YaroslavBelousovv. Russia, nos. 2653\/13 and 60980\/14, \u00a7\u00a0141, 4\u00a0October 2016). It notes, however, that the applicant did not include these complaints in his points of appeal as grounds for his application to reverse the first\u2011instance judgment. Accordingly, he did not provide the domestic courts with the opportunity to address the particular Convention violations alleged against the State. These complaints must therefore be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

31.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n

32.\u00a0\u00a0The Government reiterated their argument to the effect that the safety barrier was a common security measure introduced over twenty years ago and applied to each and every detainee appearing before a court. The applicant\u2019s placement behind the metal bars could not therefore have had any impact on the court\u2019s position and affected the presumption of innocence.<\/p>\n

33.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained his complaint.<\/p>\n

34.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that in the present case it has examined the main legal question raised in connection with the applicant\u2019s confinement in a metal cage under Article\u00a03 of the Convention (see paragraphs 24-26 above), which subsumed the issue of the presumption of innocence under Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention (see Urazov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a091-92, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedevv. Russia, nos. 11082\/06 and 13772\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0743-44, 25\u00a0July 2013).<\/p>\n

35.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers, therefore, that it is not necessary to examine the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention separately.<\/p>\n

III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

36.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n

A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n

37.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 60,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

38.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered this claim to be excessive and not corresponding to the Court\u2019s case-law.<\/p>\n

39.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the violation of the Convention found and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR\u00a07,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.<\/p>\n

B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n

40.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not claim costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.<\/p>\n

C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n

41.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe complaints under Article\u00a03, Article 6 \u00a7 2 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the applicant\u2019s confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention,EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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

6.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Stephen Phillips\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vincent A. De Gaetano
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\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 VALYUZHENICH v. RUSSIA (Application no. 10597\/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 March 2019 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article\u00a044 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the…<\/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-2485","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\/2485","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=2485"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2485\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9252,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2485\/revisions\/9252"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}