Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: February 2015

CASE OF GORDEYEV v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2015
A violation of Article 6 § 1.

CASE OF KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2015
The respondent State has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in breach of its obligation under Article 34; a violation of Article 3.

CASE OF MIFOBOVA v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2015
A violation of Article 5 § 1.

CASE OF RAZZAKOV v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2015
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive head in that the applicant was subjected to torture; a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural head.

CASE OF SERGEY ZUBAREV v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2015
No violation of Article 6 § 1.

CASE OF YUDITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 12 February 2015
A violation of Article 8.

CASE OF DZHABBAROV v. RUSSIA, 19 February 2015
A violation of Article 3 in its substantive aspect; a violation of Article 3 in its procedural aspect.

CASE OF KALININ v. RUSSIA, 19 February 2015
A violation of Article 5 § 3.

CASE OF KOVAL v. RUSSIA, 19 February 2016
A violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour.

CASE OF KHALIKOV v. RUSSIA, 26 February 2015
The forced return of the applicant to Uzbekistan would give rise to a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) in respect of the applicant’s detention in the context of the expulsion proceedings; Decides to maintain the indication to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court until such time as the present judgment becomes final, or until further notice.

CASE OF YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA, 26 February 2015
A violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective domestic remedy; a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Akhtubinsk IVS and IZ-30/1; a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s transportation between the Akhtubinsk IVS and IZ-30/1; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) concerning the applicant’s detention between 20 August and 26 December 2003; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the delayed examination of the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 15 June 2004.
Comments