October 2012


ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA, 2 October 2012 
Holds that, in the event of the applicant’s return to Russia, his extradition to Uzbekistan would give rise to a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s transfer to Tajikistan; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) in respect of the applicant’s detention from 9 December 2009 to 8 February 2010; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the length of the proceedings in the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 7 September and 8 December 2010; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the applicant’s inability to obtain a review of his detention between8 December 2010 and 9 June 2011; Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention; Decides to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that, in the case of the applicant’s return to Russia, it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to extradite him until such time as the present judgment becomes final or until further order. 

BORTKEVICH v. RUSSIA, 2 October 2012 
A violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the authorities’ failure to afford the applicant an adequate opportunity to present his case effectively before the civil court. 

KHRABROVA v. RUSSIA, 2 October 2012
A violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unfairness of the civil proceedings; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of a public hearing. 

PELIPENKO v. RUSSIA, 2 October 2012
A violation of Article 6 § 1; a violation of Article 8. 

VESELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 2 October 2012 
A violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect to all three applicants. 

ASYANOV v. RUSSIA, 9 October 2012
A violation of Article 3. 

KOLUNOV v. RUSSIA, 9 October 2012
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 3. 

PUZYREVSKIY v. RUSSIA, 9 October 2012
A violation of Article 6 § 1. 

VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA, 9 October 2012
A violation of Article 6 § 1. 

MAKHMUDZHAN ERGASHEV v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2012
Holds that, if the decision to extradite the applicant to Kyrgyzstan were to be enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3; Holds that its finding made under Article 3 constitutes sufficient just satisfaction as regards the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage; Decides to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to extradite the applicant until such time as the present judgment becomes final or until further order. 

NIYAZOV v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2012
A violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention between 29 October and 27 December 2010; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the unavailability of a judicial review of the prosecutor’s orders of 31 October and 7 December 2010; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of a breach of the speediness requirement in the appeal proceedings against the extension order of 27 December 2010; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention between 4 May and26 July 2011 pending his administrative removal. 

RAKHMONOV v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2012 
A violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention from 4 February to 24 March 2011; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of a speedy review of the applicant’s detention as authorised by the court order of 4 February 2011. 

CATAN AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA, 19 October 2012 
A violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 by the Russian Federation. 

DMITRIY ROZHIN v. RUSSIA, 23 October 2012
A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg from 15 March to 3 August 2005; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (a). 

GRIGORYEV v. RUSSIA, 23 October 2012
A violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment; a violation of Article 3 on account of beatings inflicted on the applicant by the police at the time of his arrest; a violation of Article 6 on account of the length of the proceedings against the applicant. 

PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA, 23 October 2012 
A violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings in the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 12 February, 13 April, 17 June and 9 December 2004; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the failure to examine the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 10 March 2005; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of a public hearing in the criminal proceedings against the applicant; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) on account of the absence of an adequate and effective opportunity to challenge Mr K.’s statements against him. 

ZENTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 23 October 2012 
A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of detention in respect of the first and third applicants in remand prison no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow from 16 December 2004 to 8 December 2005; a violation of Article 5 § 3. 

ABLYAZOV v. RUSSIA, 30 October 2012
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb. 

VALERIY LOPATA v. RUSSIA, 30 October 2012
A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand facilities between 24 July 2003 and 16 January 2006 and from 8 February to 12 April 2006; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) on account of the applicant’s inability to participate in the proceedings against him.
Comments