Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: January 2016

CASE OF FRUMKIN v. RUSSIA
, 5 January 2016
A violation of Article 11 on account of the authorities’ failure to ensure the peaceful conduct of the assembly at Bolotnaya Square; a violation of Article 11 on account of the applicant’s arrest, pre-trial detention and administrative sentence; a violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d).

CASE OF KLEYN v. RUSSIA, 5 January 2016
A violation of Article 5 § 1 (a) on account of the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 13 September 2001 to 15 June 2005; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) on account of the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 15 June to 5 August 2005; a violation of Article 5 § 5 on account of the lack of an enforceable right to compensation in respect of the detention from 13 September 2001 to 15 June 2005.

CASE OF MANEROV v. RUSSIA, 5 January 2016
A violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the failure to consider the substance of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 15 February 2010 to reject his request for release; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the length of the appeal proceedings in relation to the detention order of 22 March 2010.

CASE OF MINIKAYEV v. RUSSIA, 5 January 2016
A violation of Article 3 under substantive limb on account of the excessive use of force against the applicant during his arrest; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb on account of the ineffective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment.

CASE OF KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA, 12 January 2016
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 13.

CASE OF SALAMOV v. RUSSIA, 12 January 2016
A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

CASE OF R. v. RUSSIA, 26 January 2016
At the applicant’s expulsion or involuntary removal to Kyrgyzstan would amount to a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb on account of the absence of an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment; a violation of Article 5 § 4; a violation of Article 5 § 1; 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 remove the applicant from Russia to Kyrgyzstan or any other country until such time as the present judgment becomes final or until further order.

CASE OF SALIKHOVA AND MAGOMEDOVA v. RUSSIA, 26 January 2016
A violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to investigate effectively the abduction of Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev.
Comments