Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: January 2014

MIKIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
, 30/1
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants’ relatives Mr Isa Mikiyev, Mr Artur Ibragimov, Mr Ramzan Shaipov, Mr Zelimkhan Batariyev and Mr Mansur Esuyev; 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. 

VELIKANOV v. RUSSIA, 30/1
A violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment; a violation of Article 3 on account of the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.

Z. AND KHATUYEVA v. RUSSIA, 30/1
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev; a procedural violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to investigate effectively the disappearance of the applicants’ relative; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants, on account of their relative’s disappearance and the authorities’ response to their suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of the unlawful detention of Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. 

ABDULAYEVA v. RUSSIA, 16/1
A violation of Article 8 on account of the decision of 26 April 2005; a violation of Article 13, taken together with Article 8, on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the decision of 26 April 2005.

AKHMATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 16/1
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants’ relatives: Lom-Ali Akhmatov, Rustam Shakhgareyev, Zelimkhan Kagirov, Zelimkhan Latayev, Khavazhi Aliyev, Alik Mazhiyev, Khasan Mazhiyev, Khuseyn Mazhiyev, Arbi Mazhiyev, Sobur-Ali Bedigov, Alkhazur Salmurzayev, Rizvan Musliyev, Bislan Musliyev and Uvays Dokuyev; a procedural violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to investigate effectively 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. 

ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 16/1
No violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions in which the bodies of the deceased were stored and displayed for identification; a violation of Article 8 in respect of all of the applicants on account of the decision of 15 May 2006; a violation of Article 13, taken together with Article 8, on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the decision of 15 May 2006.

KUSHTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 16/1
A violation of Article 8 on account of the decision of 11 October 2006; a violation of Article 13, taken together with Article 8, on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the decision of 11 October 2006. 

PELIPENKO v. RUSSIA, 16/1
The Court holds that within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2, the respondent State shall secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 25 July 2012 made by the Anapa Town Court in the applicants’ favour, and to bear the costs of the applicants’ accommodation, pending the enforcement of that judgment. 

SHCHIBORSHCH AND KUZMINA v. RUSSIA, 16/1
A violation of Article 2 on account of the lack of planning and control of the involuntary hospitalisation operation in respect of Mr Shchiborshch; a violation of Article 2 on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the events that led to Mr Shchiborshch’s death; a violation of Article 13. 

ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA, 16/1
A violation of Article 8 in respect of both applicants on account of the decision of 15 May 2006; a violation of Article 13, taken together with Article 8, on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the decision of 15 May 2006. 

BUDANOV v. RUSSIA, 9/1
A violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of adequate medical care of the applicant. 

GORELOV v. RUSSIA, 9/1
A violation of Article 2 on account of the authorities’ failure to carry out a thorough and expeditious investigation of the applicant’s complaint concerning his infection with HIV. 

PITSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 9/1
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants’ relatives: Mulat Barshigov, Isa Eskiyev, Usman Eskiyev, Zayndi Ayubov, Khamzan Debizov, Akhmed Kasumov, Magomed Kasumov, Adam Eskirkhanov, Ismail Taisumov, Aslambek Adiyev, Albert Midayev, Magomed Elmurzayev, Buvaysar Magomadov, Said Adiyev, Aydrus Saraliyev, Artur Yesiyev, Bislan Chadakhanov, Apti Dombayev, Gilani Aliyev, Mikhail Borchashvili, Aslanbek Viskhadzhiyev, Yasin Viskhadzhiyev, Sultan Viskhadzhiyev, Yusup Biysultanov, Anzor Ismailov, Masud Khakimov, Syal-Mirza Murdalov, Ayndi Islamov, Umar Islamov, Aslan Yusupov, Musa Merluyev, Adam Abdulvakhidov, Suliman Yunusov, Mausyr Basnukayev, Vakha Alisultanov and Shamsudi Alisultanov; a procedural violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to investigate effectively 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.
Comments