 A violation of Article 2. CASE OF TOMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 1 December 2016 A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; Holds in respect of application no. 45173/08, that the question of the application of Article 41, in so far as it concerns the claim for pecuniary damages, is not ready for decision; accordingly, (a) reserves the said question; (b) invites the Government and the applicants to submit, within four months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, their written observations on the matter and to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach; (c) reserves the further procedure and delegates to the President of the Chamber the power to fix the same if need be; Holds in respect of the remainder of the applications, that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, full restoration of the applicants’ title to the rooms in the building; CASE OF TRAPEZNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 1 December 2016 A violation of Article 2 under its procedural limb on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into Mr Antonov’s death; a violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb on account of the State’s failure to safeguard Mr Antonov’s right to life. CASE OF CHEREPANOV v. RUSSIA, 6 December 2016 A violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. CASE OF DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA, 6 December 2016 A violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective domestic remedy whereby to complain of inadequate medical treatment whilst in detention; a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of adequate medical treatment in detention. CASE OF MIKHAIL NIKOLAYEV v. RUSSIA, 6 December 2016 A violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb. CASE OF TRUTKO v. RUSSIA, 6 December 2016 A violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawful deprivation of liberty for the purpose of conducting a forensic psychiatric examination; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawful deprivation of liberty for the purpose of providing compulsory medical treatment. CASE OF BOYCHUK v. RUSSIA, 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 5 § 1. CASE OF DUMIKYAN v. RUSSIA, 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand prison; a violation of Article 3 on account of the quality of medical treatment in detention; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention between 12 August and 23 September 2008. CASE OF IDALOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2), 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment in custody on 21 May 2009, 29 October 2010, and 29 September and 1 October 2012; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb on account of ineffective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment occurring on 21 May 2009, 29 October 2010, and 29 September and 1 October 2012; a violation of Articles 3 and 13 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention and transport; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) on account of the applicant’s arrest on 16 July 2008 and ensuing detention from 16 to 17 July 2008; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) on account of the applicant’s detention authorised by the court order of 18 July 2008; a violation of Article 5 § 3. CASE OF KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2), 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 11 as regards both applicants; a violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the second applicant; a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards both applicants. CASE OF KOLBASOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 8 December 2016 These applications disclose a breach of Article 3 concerning the inadequate conditions of detention; a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). CASE OF KOLOMENSKIY v. RUSSIA, 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 13, in combination with Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4; a violation of Article 6 § 2. CASE OF KUNITSYNA v. RUSSIA, 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 10. CASE OF NAZAROV v. RUSSIA, 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4 as regards the detention hearing on 4 January 2008. CASE OF SHAGABUTDINOV v. RUSSIA, 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 3. CASE OF SNYATOVSKIY v. RUSSIA , 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the length of the appeal examination of the detention orders of 2 March, 1 June, 3 September and 4 December 2007; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. CASE OF YUNZEL v. RUSSIA, 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with timeous and adequate dental treatment. CASE OF PASHKEVICH v. RUSSIA, 13 December 2016 A violation of Article 13; a violation of Article 3. CASE OF BERDZENISHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 20 December 2016 A violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 in respect to Mr Berdzenishvili, Mr Kbilashvili, Mr Givishvili, Ms Chkaidze, Mr Jaoshvili, Ms Chokheli, Mr L. Kobaidze, Mr K. Kobaidze, Mr Latsbidze, Ms Kalandia, Mr Tsikhistavi, Mr Norakidze, Ms Dzadzamia and Ms Gigashvili; a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 in respect to Mr Berdzenishvili, Mr Kbilashvili, Mr Givishvili, Ms Nachkebia, Ms Chokheli, Mr L. Kobaidze, Mr K. Kobaidze, Mr Latsbidze, Ms Kalandia, Mr Tsikhistavi, Mr Norakidze, Ms Dzadzamia and Ms Gigashvili; a violation of Article 3 in respect to Mr Berdzenishvili, Mr Kbilashvili, Mr Givishvili, Ms Nachkebia, Ms Chokheli, Mr L. Kobaidze, Mr K. Kobaidze, Mr Latsbidze, Ms Kalandia, Mr Tsikhistavi, Mr Norakidze, Ms Dzadzamia and Ms Gigashvili; a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in respect to Mr Berdzenishvili, Mr Kbilashvili, Mr Givishvili, Ms Nachkebia, Ms Chokheli, Mr L. Kobaidze, Mr K. Kobaidze, Mr Latsbidze, Ms Kalandia, Mr Tsikhistavi, Mr Norakidze, Ms Dzadzamia and Ms Gigashvili; Holds, that the question of the application of Article 41 is, as far as the award of damages is concerned, not ready for decision and accordingly reserves the said question. CASE OF DEVYATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 20 December 2016 These complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). CASE OF DZIDZAVA v. RUSSIA, 20 December 2016 A violation of Article 2 under its material head; a violation of Article 2 under its procedural head; a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3. CASE OF KALACHEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 20 December 2016 These applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). CASE OF LYUBIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 20 December 2016 A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. CASE OF RADZHAB MAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA, 20 December 2016 A violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s conditions of transport; a violation of Article 8. CASE OF SHIOSHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 20 December 2016 A violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4; a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 in respect to the first applicant; a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3. CASE OF YUSUPOVA v. RUSSIA, 20 December 2016 A violation of Article 8. |
|
|