Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: July 2014

CASE OF GERASIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 1 July 2014
A violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of judgments in the applicants’ favour; a violation of Article 6 in respect of the applicants on account of the State’s prolonged failure to enforce the domestic judgments in their favour; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Mr Shmakov, Ms Kostyleva, Mr Zakharchenko, Ms Ilnitskaya, Mr Grinko and Ms Antonova on account of the breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

CASE OF AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA, 3 July 2014
A violation of Article 3 in that the State has not complied with its positive obligation.

CASE OF ANTAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 3 July 2014
A violation of Article 3 in both its substantive and procedural aspects in respect of the first to sixth, eighth and ninth applicants; a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 in respect of the first to sixth, eighth and ninth applicants.

CASE OF DUBINSKIY v. RUSSIA, 3 July 2014
A violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 5 § 3.

CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I), 3 July 2014
A violation of Article 38; the expulsions of Georgian nationals during the period in question amounted to an administrative practice in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; the arrests and detentions of Georgian nationals during the period in question amounted to an administrative practice in breach of Article 5 § 1; the lack of remedies available to Georgian nationals against the arrests, detentions and expulsion orders during the period in question amounted to a violation of Article 5 § 4; the conditions of detention of Georgian nationals during the period in question amounted to an administrative practice in breach of Article 3; a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3.

CASE OF BESEDA v. RUSSIA, 10 July 2014
A violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; a violation of Article 13, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1;

CASE OF LUKINYKH v. RUSSIA, 10 July 2014
A violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 August 2002.

CASE OF M.S. v. RUSSIA, 10 July 2014
A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions in which the applicant was transferred to and from the courthouse and the conditions in which the applicant was transported to the correctional colony; a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy enabling him to complain about the conditions in which he was transported; a violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to comply with their responsibility to ensure adequate medical assistance to the applicant during his detention in the correctional colonies between September 2011 and 18 May 2012.

CASE OF OLEG ZHURAVLEV v. RUSSIA, 10 July 2014
A violation of Article 3.

CASE OF RAKHIMOV v. RUSSIA, 10 July 2014
Holds that the forced return of the applicant to Uzbekistan would give rise to a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 3 on account of the the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 30 July to 5 August 2013 at the Mozhaiskiy District police station in Moscow; a violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of the applicant’s detention between 24 and 30 July 2013; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) in respect of the applicant’s detention pending administrative removal; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the applicant’s inability to obtain judicial review of his detention pending administrative removal; Decides to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable, in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings, not to expel or otherwise involuntarily remove the applicant from Russia to Uzbekistan until such time as the present judgment becomes final or until further order.

CASE OF YAKOVLEVA v. RUSSIA, 10 July 2014
A violation of Article 6 § 1.

CASE OF KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA, 17 July 2014
Holds that the applicants’ respective extradition to Kyrgyzstan would amount to a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the length of the proceedings in Mr Mamashev’s appeals against the detention orders of 1 October and 4 December 2012, and 1 February 2013; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the unavailability of a judicial review of Mr Kadirzhanov’s detention between 13 May and 25 September 2013.

CASE OF KIM v. RUSSIA, 17 July 2014
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f).

CASE OF SVINARENKO AND SLYADNEV v. RUSSIA, 17 July 2014
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 6 § 1.

CASE OF LYAPIN v. RUSSIA, 24 July 2014
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive head; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural head.

CASE OF MAMADALIYEV v. RUSSIA, 24 July 2014
Holds that, if the decision to extradite the applicant to Kyrgyzstan were to be enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3.

CASE OF NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA, 31 July 2014
A violation of Article 11; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the arbitrary conviction of the applicant for an administrative offence; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the arbitrary arrest and detention of the applicant; a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of detention; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.

CASE OF OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS v. RUSSIA, 31 July 2014
The case originated in an application (no. 14902/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (“the applicant company”), on 23 April 2004; in a judgment delivered on 20 September 2011 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that in the 2000 Tax Assessment proceedings the applicant company did not have sufficient time for preparation of the case at first instance and on appeal, in breach of Article 6 (§§ 534-551 of the principal judgment), that the assessment of the penalties relating to 2000 and the doubling of the penalties for 2001 were unlawful and in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (§§ 563-575), and that in the enforcement proceedings against the applicant company the domestic authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the legitimate aim of these proceedings and the measures employed, in breach of the same Convention provision (§§ 645-658). 

Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company’s shareholders as they stood at the time of the company’s liquidation and, as the case may be, their legal successors and heirs EUR 1,866,104,634 (one billion, eight hundred sixty six million, hundred and four thousand, six hundred thirty four euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b) that the respondent State must produce, in co-operation with the Committee of Ministers, within six months from the date on which this judgment becomes final, a comprehensive plan, including a binding time frame, for distribution of this award of just satisfaction.
Comments