30.08.2011
Supreme Court of Russian Federation
Case No..KAC11-441
DECISION
Moscow August 30, 2011
Cassation Board of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation headed by
chairman Manokhina G.V.,
Board members: Korchashkina T.E., Merkulova V. P.
considered in public court session materials of Bugrova's Lada
Stanislavovna Complaint, challenging item 11 of Statement on allowance
conditions of people detained for administrative offence, nutritional
standards and medical services of these people provided by the
resolution of the government of Russian Federation dated October 15,
2003 No. 627.
Considering the private complaint of the Applicant against judgment of
the Supreme Court of Russian Federation dated May 16, 2011 which
denied the Applicant in consideration of the application (item 1, part
1, article 134 Code of Civil Procedure of Russian Federation).
Having listened to the report of the Judge of the Supreme Court of
Russian Federation Manokhina G.V.
the Cassation Board determined:
Bugrova L. S. appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
with the application in which she requested the court to
declare invalid provisions of item 11 in part setting the norms of
the area for one detainee at least 2sq. m, she refers to the fact that
in October 7, 2010 her husband, Bugrov Michael Yurjevich was placed in
the cell for administrative detainees of the Octyabrsky District
Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Yekaterinburg the area
of which is 8.6 square meters.
As there were 7 people in the cell a fight which resulted
in Bugrov M.Y. death occured.
On May 16, 2011 the Judge of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation
refused to accept the claim as subject not to be
considered and resolved in civil proceedings (item 1 Part 1, art. 134
of Code of Civil Procedure Code).
In a private complaint the applicant's representative raised the
issue of cancellation of the decision of the Judge, pointing
out that Bugrova L. S., as the wife of the deceased, is recognized an
indirect victim and has a right to appeal for the legal action in
defense of her husband's rights.
Having discussed the arguments of the private
complaint, Cassation Board has no reason for cancellation the
decision.
As follows from Bugrova's application addressed to the court of
primary jurisdiction, Bugrova L. S. asked the court to declare item 11
of the Statement invalid to protect the rights of the
deceased husband.
According to the European Human Rights Court, the statement indicated
that she is recognized an implicit victim and is allowed succession
and has the right to apply to the court for the protection of the
violated rights of the victim - the immediate victim.
Under Art. 44 of Russian Federation Code of Civil Procedure the
court allows the replacement by a successor in case of the death of
the person. Succession is possible at any stage of civil proceedings.
Based on this article, procedural succession occurs in cases where
the rights or obligations of one of the subjects of the
controversial material issues by virtue of legal or other reasons
transfers to another person.
The Judge came to the correct conclusion that in this case, the
provisions of Article 44 of Russian Federation Code of Civil
Procedure, which allows procedural succession, may not be
applicable because the applicant disputes the provisions of the
normative legal act, by which the succession to the extent required by
law, is prohibited.
In these circumstances the Judge had legal rights to deny the
application on the basis of item 1 Part 1 of Art. 134 Code of Civil
Procedure of Russian Federation.
Reference to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights does
not deny the decision of the Judge.
Under art. 374 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,
the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
established:
to leave decision of the Judge of the Supreme Court of
Russian Federation dated May 16, 2011 unchanged, and private complaint
of Bugrova Lada Stanislavovna - without satisfaction.
Добавить комментарий: