Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: October 2015

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-157887
BORIS IVANOV v. RUSSIA
, 6 October 2015
A violation of Article 3 in its procedural aspect; a violation of Article 3 in its substantive aspect.

GORSHCHUK v. RUSSIA, 6 October 2015
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb.

SERGEYEV v. RUSSIA, 6 October 2015
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 3.

TURBYLEV v. RUSSIA, 6 October 2015
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) on account of the use in evidence of the applicant’s confession obtained as a result of his inhuman and degrading treatment and in the absence of access to a lawyer.

KHARLAMOV v. RUSSIA, 8 October 2015
A violation of Article 10.

FARTUSHIN v. RUSSIA, 8 October 2015
A violation of Article 3 under its substantive and procedural limbs; a violation of Article 5 on account of the applicant’s unrecorded detention at the police station.

SERGEY DENISOV v. RUSSIA, 8 October 2015
A violation of Article 13.

TSELOVALNIK v. RUSSIA, 8 October 2015
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 13.

ABAKAROVA v. RUSSIA, 15 October 2015
A violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicant and her five relatives; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the use of lethal force by State agents; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.

BELOZOROV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE, 15 October 2015
A violation of Article 5 § 1 by Ukraine on account of the applicant’s arrest in Feodosiya, his detention and subsequent forced transfer to Moscow; a violation of Article 8 by Ukraine on account of the search of the applicant’s apartment in Feodosiya; a violation of Article 5 § 3 by the Russian Federation on account of the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 by the Russian Federation on account of the applicant’s inability to attend the hearings of 1 July and 24 October 2002, serious delays in examination of his appeals dated 1 and 22 July 2002 and the courts’ failure to examine his appeals of 17 September and 17 December 2002.

DUBOV v. RUSSIA, 15 October 2015
A violation of Article 3.

ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA, 15 October 2015
A violation of Article 5 § 3.

KURUSHIN v. RUSSIA, 15 October 2015
A violation of Article 3.

L.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 15 October 2015
Holds that the forced return of the applicants to Syria would give rise to a violation of Articles 2 and/or 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f); Holds that that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34; Holds that the respondent State is to ensure immediate release of applicants L.M. and M.A.

NABID ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA, 15 October 2015
Holds that if the decision to extradite the applicant to Kyrgyzstan were to be enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the length of the proceedings in the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 13 September 2013.

LYUBUSHKIN v. RUSSIA, 22 October 2015
A violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 6 October 2004 to 27 October 2006; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the failure to examine speedily the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 23 September, 24 November and 27 December 2005.

S.M. v. RUSSIA, 22 October 2015
A violation of Article 3 in its procedural limb.

TURGUNOV v. RUSSIA, 22 October 2015
Holds that the applicant’s extradition to Kyrgyzstan would amount to a violation of Article 3; Holds that its finding made under Article 3 constitutes sufficient just satisfaction as regards the claim for compensation for non‑pecuniary damage; 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 extradite the applicant until such time as the present judgment becomes final or until further order.

A.L. (X.W.) v. RUSSIA, 29 October 2015
Holds, that the forcible return of the applicant to China would give rise to a violation of Articles 2 and 3; a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Krasnoe Selo detention centre for aliens; a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Krasnoselskiy District police station no. 9.

IZMUTDIN ISAYEV v. RUSSIA, 29 October 2015
A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison IZ-44/1 in Kostroma from 20 May 2008 to 17 July 2008; a violation of Article 13.

MISHURA AND GAYEVA v. RUSSIA, 29 October 20115
A violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing by way of the supervisory-review proceedings of the judgments in the applicants’ favour.
Comments