November 2010

Sakhnovskiy v Russia, 2 November 2010
A violation of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) 1 in the proceedings taken as a whole, which ended with the judgment of 29 November 2007.

Aleksandr Sokolov v Russia, 4 November 2010
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive and procedural limbs; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s unrecorded detention from 19 to 20 February 2004.

Arefyev v Russia, 4 November 2010
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c).

Bannikova v Russia, 4 November 2010
No violation of Article 6 § 1.

Eydelman and Other ‘Emigrant Pensioners’ v Russia, 4 November 2010
A violation of Article 6 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all cases on account of the quashing of the judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review.

Muminov v Russia, 4 November 2010
In a judgment delivered on 11 December 2008 (Muminov v Russia) the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s expulsion to Uzbekistan; a violation of Article 13 on account of the authorities’ failure to afford the applicant an effective and accessible remedy in relation to his complaint under Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the unavailability of any procedure for a judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan; and a violation of Article 5 § 1 in relation to his detention with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (see § 143 of the principal judgment and point 9 of the operative provisions).

The respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

Pugach and Others v Russia
, 4 November 2010
A violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 on account of the quashing of the judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review.

Sultanov v Russia, 4 November 2010
In the event of the extradition order against the applicant being enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 5 § 4.
 
Amuyeva and Others v Russia, 25 November 2010
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Aslambek Israilov, Adam Israilov, Turpal Israilov and Aslanbek Dzhabrailov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Aslambek Israilov, Adam Israilov, Turpal Israilov and Aslanbek Dzhabrailov were killed; a violation of Article 13 in respect of the alleged violations of Article 2.

Ivan Kuzmin v Russia, 25 November 2010
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive and procedural limbs; a violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of the applicant’s detention at the police station on 5 June 2001; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

Nikolay Matveyev v Russia, 25 November 2010
A violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the State’s failure to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour.

Polovinkin v Russia, 25 November 2010
A violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 6 § 1.
 
Roman Karasev v Russia, 25 November 2010
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3; a violation of Article 6 § 1.
ĉ
Rights in Russia,
1 Dec 2010, 09:11
Comments