Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in February 2014

CASE OF SEMIKHVOSTOV v. RUSSIA
, 6 February 2014
A violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective domestic remedy with which to raise claims of inadequate conditions of detention; a violation of Article 3 on account of the inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant’s detention.

CASE OF ZIMIN v. RUSSIA, 6 February 2014
No violation of Article 5 § 3.

CASE OF FIRSTOV v. RUSSIA, 20 February 2014
A violation of Article 3.

CASE OF NOSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 20 February 2014
A violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the delayed execution of the judgments in the applicants’ favour.

CASE OF SHISHKOV v. RUSSIA, 20 February 2014
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention; a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

CASE OF DZHABRAILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 27 February 2014
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants’ relatives Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov, Mr Salambek Suleymanov,Mr Khasanbek Suleymanov, Mr Anderbek Suleymanov, Mr Ramzan Chankayev, Mr Aslan Chankayev, Mr Dzhamali Sultanov, Mr Aldan Eldarov, Mr Moul Usumov, MrAkhdan Tamayev, Mr Islam Ibragimov, Mr Apti Sadulayev and Mr Ziyavdi Elmurzayev; a procedural violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to investigate the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants on account of their relatives’ disappearance and the authorities’ response to their suffering; 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 of the Convention.

CASE OF KOROVINY v. RUSSIA, 27 February 2014
A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the first applicant's confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital; a violation of Article 3 on account of the first applicant's attachment to his bed for twenty-four hours; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the domestic court's failure to examine the applicants' complaints concerning the conditions of the first applicant's confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital, attachment to his bed and censorship of the applicants' correspondence by the hospital administration; a violation of Article 8 on account of the censorship of the applicants' correspondence by the administration of Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital.
Comments