Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: July 2013

ANCHUGOV AND GLADKOV v. RUSSIA
, 4 July 2013 
A violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 

BALAKIN v. RUSSIA, 4 July 2013 
No violation of Article 6 § 1. 

BAYSULTANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 4 July 2013
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Beslan Baysultanov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Beslan Baysultanov disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants on account of their mental distress; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Beslan Baysultanov; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. 

ALEKSANDR NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA, 11 July 2013
A violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 6 § 1. 

KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA, 11 July 2013 
A violation of Article 2 §§ 2 and 3 of Protocol No. 4. 

NASAKIN v. RUSSIA, 18 July 2013 
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb on account of the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody; a violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 19 July 2007 to 21 February 2008; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 

TAZIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 18 July 2013
A violation of Article 8. 

KHODORKOVSKIY AND LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA, 25 July 2013 
A violation of Article 3 on account of the second applicant’s placement in a metal cage in the courtroom; a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the second applicant’s detention after September 2004; a violation of Article 5 § 4 in respect of the second applicant on account of the delayed examination of the detention order of 14 December 2004; a violation of Article 6 § 1, taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) on account of the breach of the lawyer-client confidentiality, and unfair taking and examination of evidence by the trial court; a violation of Article 8 on account of sending the applicants to remote correctional colonies; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the first applicant; the authorities failed to respect their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention. 
Comments