Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)19[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Poleshchuk against the Russian Federation
(Application No. 60776/00, judgment of 7 October 2004, final on 7 January 2005)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns an interference with the applicant's right of individual petition due to the refusal by penitentiary authorities to forward his letters to the European Court (violation of Article 34) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with the Russian Federation's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having noted that the Court awarded no just satisfaction in this case (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of any just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures, preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 948th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (14 December 2005), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)19
Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment
in the case of Poleshchuk against the Russian Federation
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the refusals by the administration of the Yaroslavl prison to forward the applicant's letters to the European Court in May and December 1999. These refusals were allegedly grounded on the applicant's previous failure to submit to domestic courts the complaint made in his letters, i.e. that the trial leading to his conviction had been unfair. The European Court found that, because of these refusals, his application had been delayed by more than 8 months, constituting an interference with his right of individual petition.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
The applicant submitted no claim for just satisfaction.
b) Individual measures
The European Court noted that, from 2000 to 2004, the applicant's correspondence with the Court had not given cause for concern. As to the previous refusals of the penitentiary authorities, an investigation was carried out by a commission of the Yaroslavl Regional Prosecutor's Office in June 2002. The investigators found that the only reason for not forwarding them was that the applicant did not have money to pay for the stamps. The lack of money was due to the applicant's refusal to accept a working position available at the material time on account of its low remuneration.
In this respect, the Russian authorities specified that according to the Internal Rules of the pre-trial detention centres approved by the Ministry of Justice Decree No. 184 of 14/10/2005, if the detainees do not have enough money to pay for their letters, in particular to the European Court of Human Rights, these letters are to be sent at the expense of the pre-trial detention centre concerned (point 98 of the Rules). However, as far as the correspondence with the European Court of the persons serving their sentences is concerned, Article 91 of the Code on Enforcement of Sentences provides that such correspondence has to be sent at their expense because these persons have an obligation to have a professional activity (Article 103 of the same Code).
II.General measures
The Russian authorities indicated that the violation was due to the fact that there was no procedure at that time for dispatching letters to the European Court. Since then the unhindered right of detainees to send applications to the European Court was provided both by law and regulation.
Certain general measures were adopted after the facts of the case and have already been noted in the Court's judgment. First, the Chief Penitentiary Directorate of the Ministry of Justice issued a circular letter on 23/10/2001 to its territorial bodies prohibiting the hindering of the dispatch of applications sent by detainees to the European Court. On 22/02/2002, the Directorate designated officials authorised to monitor the unhindered dispatch of applications to the European Court from penitentiary institutions. Secondly, the Deputy Prosecutor General issued a circular letter of 29/03/2002 to regional prosecutors inviting them to take measures to ensure the unhindered exercise of the detainees' right of individual petition and to point out violations of this right to the General Prosecutor.
Moreover, following the present judgment, the Chief Penitentiary Directorate issued a new circular letter on 14/02/2005 to its territorial bodies prohibiting the hindering of the dispatch of detainees' applications to the European Court and published the Russian translation of the present judgment in the Bulletin of the penitentiary system.
These instructions implemented the general principles provided in existing texts allowing detainees to send applications to the European Court (Articles 12 and 91 of the Code on the Enforcement of Sentences and Article 21 of the Federal Law of 15 July 1995 on detention of indicted persons accused of having committed a felony).
Finally, in its later judgment of 7 June 2007, case of Nurmagomedov against Russia, the European Court welcomed the legislative amendments and administrative regulations adopted by the Russian authorities with a view to exempting correspondence with the Court from censorship and securing the uninhibited exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and prospective applicants held in penitentiary institutions (§55 of the judgment).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures taken will prevent new, similar violations and that the Russian Federation has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 March 2008 at the 1020th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy