CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 novembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 135 November 2010 Muminov v. Russia (just satisfaction) - 42502/06 Judgment 4.11.2010 [Section I] Article 41 Just satisfaction Respondent State required to secure execution of just-satisfaction award by facilitating re-establishment of contact with applicant expelled to non-member State   In the principal judgment delivered on 11   December 2008, the Court had found, in particular, that the applicant’s expulsion to Uzbekistan had given rise to violations of Articles   3 and   13 of the Convention. The Court had also stated in this connection that the absence of any reliable information as to the applicant’s situation after his expulsion to Uzbekistan, except for the fact of his conviction, remained a matter of grave concern. Article 41: The Court’s decision to reserve the examination of the question concerning just satisfaction had been, inter alia , due to the fact that the applicant had no longer been within the jurisdiction of the respondent State and that after his removal to Uzbekistan he had been convicted and sent to serve a prison sentence in an unspecified detention facility. All contact between him and his representative or between him and the Court had been interrupted. In fact, the Court had had no means of renewing contact with the applicant. Nor had there been any prospect of making any other arrangements which would allow execution of any just satisfaction award made by the Court. Indeed, since the applicant remained within the jurisdiction of a State which was not a High Contracting Party to the Convention, the execution of a just-satisfaction award might prove difficult in the circumstances of the case. In the Court’s view, in such a situation it could be expected of the respondent Government that they would cooperate fully in the conduct of the subsequent proceedings, in particular by helping, by appropriate means, to re-establish contact between the applicant and his representative and/or between the applicant and the Court. However, it did not appear that such cooperation had been forthcoming. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and held that the respondent State was to secure, by appropriate means, the execution of the just-satisfaction award, in particular, by facilitating contact between the applicant, on the one hand, and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe acting under Article   46 of the Convention, the applicant’s representative in the Convention proceedings or any other person entitled or authorised to represent the applicant in the enforcement proceedings, on the other. Conclusion : EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes