Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: April 2013

IVAKHNENKO v. RUSSIA
, 4 April 2013 
A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention. 

MARKARYAN v. RUSSIA, 4 April 2013
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb. 

REZNIK v. RUSSIA, 4 April 2013 
A violation of Article 10. 

TKACHEVY v. RUSSIA, 4 April 2013 
In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2012 (“the principal judgment”) the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the expropriation of the applicants’ flat in downtown Moscow had lacked a convincingly demonstrated public interest. As the parties have failed to agree on the expert to assess the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, the President of the Chamber entrusted the task, at the Government’s expense, to Mr M. Rodin of “Professional Experts’ and Valuators’ Society” (“the expert”). The Court holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2, amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 

MANULIN v. RUSSIA, 11 April 2013 
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 3. 

OCHELKOV v. RUSSIA, 11 April 2013 
A violation of Article 3 on account of the treatment to which the applicant was subjected by police officers on 16 and 17 January 2002; a violation of Article 3 on account of the events of 14 and 15 February 2003; a violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate effectively the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints pertaining to the two incidents on 16 and 17 January 2002 and on 14 and 15 February 2003. 

SEMEN VYATKIN v. RUSSIA, 11 April 2013 
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 3. 

SHIKUTA v. RUSSIA, 11 April 2013 
A violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 5 § 4. 

AGEYEVY v. RUSSIA, 18 April 2013
A violation of Article 8 in respect of both applicants on account of the decision to revoke the adoption of the applicants’ children; a violation of the Convention in respect of both applicants on account of their inability to review the authorities’ position concerning access to the children between 31 March 2009 and 3 June 2010; a violation of Article 8 in respect of both applicants on account of the actions of the officials of the Burn Care Hospital during G.’s stay in that hospital; a violation of Article 8 in respect of both applicants on account of the respondent State’s failure to investigate the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information on G.’s adopted status; a violation of Article 8 in respect of the second applicant on account of the respondent State’s failure to protect her right to reputation in the defamation proceedings against OOO News Media-Rus. 

ASKHABOVA v. RUSSIA, 18 April 2013
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Abdul-Yazit Askhabov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Abdul-Yazit Askhabov disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the mental suffering caused to the applicant; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Abdul-Yazit Askhabov; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. 

AZIMOV v. RUSSIA, 18 April 2013
The Court holds that the forced return of the applicant to Tajikistan would give rise to a violation of 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 pending expulsion; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f). 

BERESNEV v. RUSSIA, 18 April 2013
A violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment; a violation of Article 3 on account of the ill-treatment of the applicant in the colony on 23 October 2001 and 21 January 2002; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the applicant’s inability to participate in two sets of civil proceedings concerning the alleged loss of his belongings and concerning the conditions of detention in the remand prison. 

ZELENKOV v. RUSSIA, 18 April 2013
A violation of Article 6 § 1. 

SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA, 25 April 2013 
A violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to protect the applicant against the real and imminent risk of torture and ill‑treatment by preventing his forcible transfer from Moscow to Tajikistan, the lack of an effective investigation into the incident, and the involvement of State agents in that operation; a violation of Article 34 on account of the respondent State’s failure to comply with the interim measures indicated by the Court; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the delays in examining the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 17 May and 19 November 2010. 

YEVGENIY IVANOV v. RUSSIA, 25 April 2013
A violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) on account of the trial court’s reliance on statements by the witnesses Mr O., Mr M. or Mr I. whom the applicant had no opportunity to question.
Comments