Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: November 2013

ALEKSANDR DEMENTYEV v. RUSSIA
, 28 November 2013
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c).

ALEKSANDR NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA, 28 November 2013
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb.

SERGEY BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA, 28 November 2013
A violation of Article 13; a violation of Article 3.

TARAKANOV v. RUSSIA, 28 November 2013
A violation of Article 5 § 1 (c).

BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA, 14 November 2013
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d).

KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA, 14 November 2013
A violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to protect the applicant against a real and imminent risk of torture and ill-treatment by preventing his forcible transfer from Russia to Uzbekistan, and the lack of an effective investigation into the incident; the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.

KOZLITIN v. RUSSIA, 14 November 2013
A violation of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) thereof.

RYABTSEV v. RUSSIA, 14 November 2013
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb; a violation of Article 6 § 1.

SHEVCHENKO v. RUSSIA, 14 November 2013
No violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

BOPAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 7 November 2013
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Luiza Dagayeva, Sharip Khaysumov and Ramzan Alaudinov; a procedural violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to investigate effectively the disappearance and deaths of the applicants’ relatives; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants; a violation of Article 5 in respect of the applicants’ relatives, on account of their unlawful detention; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3.

ERMAKOV v. RUSSIA, 7 November 2013
A violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to protect the applicant against a real and imminent risk of torture and ill‑treatment by preventing his forcible transfer from Russia to Uzbekistan, and the lack of an effective investigation into the incident; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account the domestic court’s failure to address the detention issue in the appeal proceedings of 22 September 2010; the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.
Comments