Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: May 2014

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-142844
NIZAMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
, 7 May 2014
Holds that the decision to expel the applicants to Uzbekistan would breach Article 3 of the Convention if it were enforced; 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/extradite the applicants until such time as the present judgment becomes final or until further order.

SERGEY CHEBOTAREV v. RUSSIA, 7 May 2014
A violation of Article 5 § 1.

TARANENKO v. RUSSIA, 15 May 2014
A violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 10 interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the Convention.

AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA, 28 May 2014
Holds that the forced return of the applicant to Uzbekistan would give rise to a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) in respect of the applicant’s detention pending extradition between 19 March and 15 May 2012; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) in respect of the applicant’s detention pending expulsion after 19 September 2012; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the unavailability of any procedure for a judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending expulsion; Decides to maintain the indication to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the applicant should not be removed to Uzbekistan or any other country until such time as the present judgment becomes final, or until further order.

DAMIR SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA, 28 May 2014
Decides to revise the judgment of 24 April 2012 as regards its findings under Article 38; Holds that the Government complied with their obligations under Article 38.

KHANUSTARANOV v. RUSSIA, 28 May 2014
A violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as to the quashing of the decision in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review.

KOPNIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 28 May 2014
A violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; a violation of Article 13.

KUZMIN v. RUSSIA, 28 May 2014
A violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the non‑enforcement of the judgment of 15 September 2004 in the applicant’s favour; a violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of the supervisory‑review procedure.

SAMAROV v. RUSSIA, 28 May 2014
A violation of Article 6 § 1; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

YELISEYEV v. RUSSIA, 28 May 2014
A violation of Article 6 § 1.
Comments