|
MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES |
Decisions |
CM/Del/Dec(2021)1419/H46-32 |
2 December 2021 |
|
1419th meeting, 30 November – 2 December 2021 (DH)
H46-32 Kudeshkina v. Russian Federation (Application No. 29492/05) Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments
Reference document |
Decisions
The Deputies
1. recalled that this case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to freedom of expression due to her dismissal from her post as judge for making critical statements about the judiciary in media interviews;
As regards individual measures
2. underlined that the just satisfaction has been paid to the applicant; however, deeply regretted that no information had been provided by the authorities in time for the present meeting and deplored that, 12 years after the adoption of the judgment, the applicant has still not been provided with any element that would amount to redress or restitutio in integrum;
3. recalled again that if reinstatement of the applicant as a judge, as one of the most appropriate forms of redress, is not possible, other avenues or ad hoc practical solutions must be found to provide financial compensation for the ensuing loss of income and other damages;
4. noted with interest the recent legislative amendments conferring upon the Prosecutor General’s Office, the new representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court, a power to conclude agreements with applicants on the means to execute a judgment finding a violation, should execution by other means not be possible;
5. in this connection, exhorted the authorities to take advantage of the possibility created in the new legislation, to urgently establish a means of providing appropriate redress for the applicant and to update the Committee in that respect by 31 March 2022 at the latest;
As regards general measures
6. recalled that the Committee has previously positively assessed the general measures already taken to ensure respect of the principles of impartiality and proportionality in disciplinary proceedings against judges, but that providing the applicant with appropriate redress is still required to remove the chilling effect on judges’ freedom of expression of the violation found in this case;
7. decided to resume examination of this case at one of their DH meetings in 2022.