Ukrainan mielenosoituksista tehty valitus saman tien hallitukselle vastattavaksi

3.2.2014 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Ukrainan mielenosoituksista on tehty valitus, jossa valittaja väittää, että poliisi pahoinpiteli häntä mielenosoitusten yhteydessä. Valittaja väittää, että Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 3, 5, 8, 11, 13 ja 1 pöytäkirjan 1 artiklaa on loukattu.

Valitus tuli vireille Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimessa 28.1.2014. Jaoston presidentti päätti 1.2.2014, että valitus lähetetään hallitukselle vastattavaksi siltä osin, kun kyse on 3, 5, 11 ja 13 artiklan loukkauksesta. Lisäksi presidentti päätti, että valitukselle annetaan etusija tuomioistuimen työjärjestyksen 41 kohdan nojalla.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The applicant, Igor Sirenko, is a Ukrainian national. According to his submissions, he has taken part in the ongoing protests in central Kyiv since 29 November 2013. He states that he was beaten up by special police units during a violent dispersal of protesters and then unlawfully detained on 30 November 2013. He complains in this respect of a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Sirenko also complains that the measures employed by the authorities to deal with the demonstrations have been in violation of his – and other protesters’ – rights under Article 3, Article 5, Article 8 (right to respect for private life), Article 11 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property). The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 January 2014. On 1 February 2014 the President of the Section to which the case has been allocated decided that notice should be given to the Government of Ukraine and that the Government should be invited to submit, by 28 February 2014, written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case in so far as it concerns Mr Sirenko’s complaints under Articles 3, 5, 11 and 13 of the Convention. The President of the Section further decided to give priority to the application under Rule 41.