{"id":5003,"date":"2019-05-17T15:02:49","date_gmt":"2019-05-17T15:02:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=5003"},"modified":"2019-05-17T15:02:49","modified_gmt":"2019-05-17T15:02:49","slug":"case-of-shatokhin-v-russia-european-court-of-human-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=5003","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF SHATOKHIN v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: center;\">THIRD SECTION<br \/>\nCASE OF SHATOKHIN v. RUSSIA<br \/>\n(Application no. 50236\/06)<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">JUDGMENT<br \/>\n(Revision)<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">STRASBOURG<br \/>\n16 October 2018<\/p>\n<p>This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n<p><strong>In the case of Shatokhin v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 27 February 2018),<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n<p>Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, President,<br \/>\nDmitry Dedov,<br \/>\nJolien Schukking, judges,<br \/>\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n<p>Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2018,<\/p>\n<p>Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n<p><strong>PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 50236\/06) 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 Konstantin YuryevichShatokhin (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 16 November 2006.<\/p>\n<p>2.\u00a0\u00a0In a judgment delivered on 27 February 2018, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant\u2019s placement in solitary confinement in a punishment cell, despite his psychiatrist\u2019s recommendation that such measure should not be applied to him. The Court also decided to award the applicant15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n<p>3.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 March 2018 the applicant\u2019srepresentative informed the Court that he had learned that the applicant had died on 21\u00a0October 2012. He accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule\u00a080 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n<p>4.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 June 2018 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the Government six weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 20 July 2018.<\/p>\n<p><strong>THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>THE REQUEST FOR REVISION<\/p>\n<p>5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019srepresentative requested revision of the judgment of 27\u00a0February 2018, which he had been unable to have executed because the applicant had died before the judgment had been adopted. Ms Svetlana AleksandrovnaShatokhina, the applicant\u2019s mother, was the heir and should therefore receive the sum awarded to the deceased.<\/p>\n<p>6.\u00a0\u00a0The Government stated that Ms Shatokhina could not claim to be a victim of a violation of her son\u2019s rights under Article 3, as those rights were non-transferable.<\/p>\n<p>7.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that the judgment of 27 February 2018 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court (see, among many others, Bajrami v. Albania (revision), no. 35853\/04, 18\u00a0December 2007; Volkan\u00d6zdemir v. Turkey (revision), no. 29105\/03, 20 July 2010; Kulikowski v.\u00a0Poland (revision), no.\u00a018353\/03, 21\u00a0December 2010; Dyller v.\u00a0Poland (revision), no. 39842\/05, 15\u00a0February 2011; G\u00fclbahar\u00d6zer and Others v.\u00a0Turkey (revision), no. 44125\/06, 10 June 2014; Nosov and Others v.\u00a0Russia (revision), nos. 9117\/04 and 10441\/04, 15 January 2015; Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (revision), no.\u00a068860\/10, 4 February 2016; and Zherdev v. Ukraine (revision), no. 34015\/07, 25 January 2018).The relevant parts of Rule 80 of provide:<\/p>\n<p>\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 &#8230; to revise that judgment.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;\u201d<\/p>\n<p>8.\u00a0\u00a0It accordingly decides to award Ms Svetlana AleksandrovnaShatokhina the amounts it previously awarded to the deceased applicant, namely EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n<p>9.\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<p><strong>FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to revise its judgment of 27\u00a0February 2018;<\/p>\n<p><strong>and accordingly,<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n<p>(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay Ms Svetlana AleksandrovnaShatokhina, the heir of Mr Konstantin YuryevichShatokhin, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention, EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand 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<p>(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<p>Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 October 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n<p>Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\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 Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1<br \/>\nDeputy Registrar\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<div class=\"social-share-buttons\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer\/sharer.php?u=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=5003\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Facebook<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?url=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=5003&text=CASE+OF+SHATOKHIN+v.+RUSSIA+%28European+Court+of+Human+Rights%29\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Twitter<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/shareArticle?url=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=5003&title=CASE+OF+SHATOKHIN+v.+RUSSIA+%28European+Court+of+Human+Rights%29\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">LinkedIn<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/pinterest.com\/pin\/create\/button\/?url=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=5003&description=CASE+OF+SHATOKHIN+v.+RUSSIA+%28European+Court+of+Human+Rights%29\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pinterest<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>THIRD SECTION CASE OF SHATOKHIN v. RUSSIA (Application no. 50236\/06) JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 16 October 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shatokhin v. Russia (request for revision of the&hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"more-link-p\"><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=5003\">Read more &rarr;<\/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-5003","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\/5003","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=5003"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5003\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5004,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5003\/revisions\/5004"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5003"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5003"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5003"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}