Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
|
posted 26 Feb 2012 11:38 by Rights in Russia
[
updated 26 Feb 2012 11:39
]
Ananyev and Others v Russia, 10 January 2012 A violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants Mr Ananyev and Mr Bashirov; a violation of Article 13 in respect of the applicants Mr Ananyev and Mr Bashirov and dismisses the Government’s objection as the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; the respondent State must produce, in co-operation with the Committee of Ministers, within six months from the date on which this judgment becomes final, a binding time frame in which to make available a combination of effective remedies having preventive and compensatory effects and complying with the requirements set out in the present judgment; the respondent State must grant redress to all victims of inhuman or degrading conditions of detention in Russian remand prisons (SIZOs) who lodged their applications with the Court before the delivery of this judgment, within twelve months from the date on which this judgment becomes final or from the date on which their application will have been communicated to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, whichever comes later. Arutyunyan v Russia, 10 January 2012 A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention from 24 to 28 January 2010. Sakhvadze v Russia, 10 January 2012 A violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant’s health care from July 2006 to June 2009. Sokurenko v Russia, 10 January 2012 A violation of Article 3 as regards the alleged beating of the applicant by the prison staff on 1-2 January 2004; a violation of Article 3 as regards the effectiveness of the investigation into the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment inflicted on 1-2 January 2004; a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 in relation to the detention order of 29 September 2004. Vladmir Vasilyev v Russia, 10 January 2012 A violation of Article 3 on account of the issue of orthopaedic footwear; a violation of Article 6 § 1. Vulakh and Others v Russia, 10 January 2012 A violation of Article 6 § 2; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. A.A. v Russia, 17 January 2012 A violation of Article 3 under its substantive aspect; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural aspect. Alchagin v Russia, 17 January 2012 A violation of Article 3 under its substantive and procedural limbs on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment between 13 October and 24 October 2003. Fetisov and Others v Russia, 17 January 2012 A violation of Article 13 in respect of all the applicants; in Mr Shakurov’s case the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34. Kosheleva and Others v Russia, 17 January 2012 The respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 in respect of the applicants referred to as nos. 1, 2, 6, 10, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 32, 40, 46, 48, 49 and 52 in the Annex. Lavrov v Russia, 17 January 2012 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. Vladimir Melnikov v Russia, 17 January 2012 A violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of non-enforcement. Dmitriyev v Russia, 24 January 2012 A violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate properly the circumstances of the applicant’s ill-treatment; a violation of Article 5 on account of the applicant’s arbitrary arrest and detention between 8 and 10 December 2001; a violation of Article 8 on account of the unlawful entry by the policemen to the applicant’s room on 8 December 2001. Mitrokhin v Russia, 24 January 2012 A violation of Article 3. Nechto v Russia, 24 January 2012 A violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb; a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 on account of the absence of a lawyer while the applicant was in police custody; a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) taken together with Article 6 § 1 on account of the fact that the applicant’s conviction was to a decisive event based on evidence he could not challenge. Valeriy Samoylov v Russia, 24 January 2012 A violation of Article 5 § 3. Slashchev v Russia, 31 January 2012 A violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with article 6 § 3 c) under its procedural limbs. |
posted 6 Jan 2012 00:27 by Rights in Russia
[
updated 6 Jan 2012 00:28
]
Gladysheva v Russia, 6 December 2011 A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; a violation of Article 8. Rozhin v Russia, 6 December 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1. Kokurkhayev v Russia, 13 December 2011 No violation of Article 6 § 1. Kryuk v Russia, 13 December 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1. Rozhnyatovskaya v Russia, 13 December 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Trudov v Russia, 13 December 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1. Vasilyev and Kovtun v Russia, 13 December 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Ergashev v Russia, 20 December 2011 Holds that in the event of the extradition order against the applicant being enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3; 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; a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention; a violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of the applicant’s detention pending extradition; a violation of Article 6 § 2. Finogenov and Others v Russia, 20 December 2011 No violation of Article 2 on account of the decision by the authorities to resolve the hostage crisis by force and to use the gas; a violation of Article 2 on account of the inadequate planning and conduct of the rescue operation; a violation of Article 2 on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the rescue operation. |
posted 5 Jan 2012 14:08 by Rights in Russia
[
updated 5 Jan 2012 14:09
]
Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v Russia, 3 November 2011 A violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 on account of the way in which the applicant was arrested and brought to the police car on 8 December 2001; a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate properly the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest and ill-treatment; a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention on 8 and 9 December 2001; a violation of Article 5 on account of the applicant’s arbitrary arrest and detention on 8 and 9 December 2001; a violation of Article 8 on account of the unlawful entry by the policemen to the applicant’s apartment on 8 December 2001; a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 8. Vanfuli v Russia, 3 November 2011 A violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb; no violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb; a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of on account of the absence of a lawyer while the applicant was in police custody; a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) taken together with Article 6 § 1 on account of the fact that his conviction was to a decisive event based on evidence he could not challenge. Filatov v Russia, 8 November 2011 A violation of Article 3 under its substantive and procedural limbs on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment on 28 and 29 November 2002. Sambiyeva v Russia, 8 November 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Said-Emin Sambiyev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Said-Emin Sambiyev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Said-Emin Sambiyev; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. Yakubov v Russia, 8 November 2011 Holds that, if the order to expel the applicant to Uzbekistan were to be enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 13; 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 the applicant until such time as the present judgment becomes final or further order. Ivantoc and Others v Moldova and Russia, 15 November 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions in which Mr Ivanţoc and Mr Tudor Popa were detained until their release; a violation of Article 5 and a violation of Article 13 on account of the detention of Mr Ivanţoc and Mr Popa and of their lack of an effective remedy related thereto; a violation of Article 8 as regards the applicants Eudochia Ivanţoc and Victor Petrov’s right to respect for their private and family life, and correspondence. Krasnov v Russia, 22 November 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour.
|
posted 13 Nov 2011 10:29 by Rights in Russia
[
updated 13 Nov 2011 10:36
]
Balenko v Russia, 11 October 2011 No violation of Article 3. Khatayev v Russia, 11 October 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate effectively the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations. Nevskaya v Russia, 11 October 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of a public hearing. Raks v Russia, 11 October 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of a public hearing. Romanova v Russia, 11 October 2011 A violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention from 6 March to 21 August 2002; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention from 21 August to 16 October 2002; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of a public hearing. Sharipov v Russia, 11 October 2011 No violation of Article 3 if the applicant were extradited to Kazakhstan; the court 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 further order. Buldashev v Russia, 18 October 2011 A violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy under domestic law enabling the applicant to complain about the conditions of his detention; a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison no. 77/1 in Chelyabinsk from 19 July 2006 to 30 June 2009; a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaint about ill-treatment in custody; a violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in custody. Cherkasov v Russia, 18 October 2011 A violation of Article 3 in that the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment; a violation of Article 3 in that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. G.O. v Russia, 18 October 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in St Petersburg remand prison no. 47/1; a violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of the applicant’s detention between 1 and 5 January 2003 and between 25 February and 24 March 2003; a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the unreasonable length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the extension of the applicant’s detention in his absence on 25 February 2003 and of the failure to examine his appeals against the detention orders of 24 March and 1 April 2003; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Shuvalov v Russia, 18 October 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment of 19 July 2002; a violation of Article 3 on account of the fact that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation. Tashukhadzhiyev v Russia, 25 October 2011 A violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev disappeared; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. Tkhyegepso and Others v Russia, 25 October 2011 A violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the failure to enforce the judgments in the applicants’ favour. Ushakov v Russia, 25 October 2011 A violation of Article 3. Naboyshchikov v Russia, 27 October 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the excessive use of firearms against the applicant and that there has been no violation on account of his alleged beating; a violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. |
posted 14 Oct 2011 06:57 by Rights in Russia
[
updated 14 Oct 2011 06:57
]
Fedorenko v Russia, 20 September 2011 A violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) on account of the applicant’s detention on remand from 27 April to 23 June 2005 and from 26 April to 22 September 2006; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 6 § 2. Lapin v Russia, 20 September 2011 A violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russia, 20 September 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3 (b) as regards the 2000 Tax Assessment proceedings on account of the insufficient time available to the applicant company for preparation of the case at first instance and on appeal; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the 2000-2001 Tax Assessments in the part relating to the imposition and calculation of penalties; a violation of the applicant company’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the enforcement proceedings against the applicant company in that the domestic authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the legitimate aim of these proceedings and the measures employed; holds that the question of the application of Article 41 is not ready for decision. Alim v Russia, 27 September 2011 The applicant’s removal from Russia would constitute a violation of Article 8. Beksultanova v Russia, 27 September 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Timur Beksultanov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Timur Beksultanov disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant on account of her mental and emotional suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Timur Beksultanov; a violation of Article 13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2. |
posted 13 Sep 2011 09:25 by Rights in Russia
[
updated 13 Sep 2011 09:26
]
Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v Russia, 5 July 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the first applicant’s belated hospitalisation for surgery. Velkhiyev v Russia, 5 July 2011 A violation of Article 2 on account of the death of Mr Bashir Velkhiyev; a violation of Article 2 on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into Mr Bashir Velkhiyev’s death; a violation of Article 3 on account of the torture of the first applicant and Mr Bashir Velkhiyev; a violation of Article 3 on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the torture of the first applicant and Mr Bashir Velkhiyev; a violation of Article 5 in respect of the first applicant and Mr Bashir Velkhiyev. Shishkin v Russia, 7 July 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate effectively the applicant’s complaints about his torture in January and February 2001; a violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate effectively the applicant’s complaints about his alleged ill-treatment on 27 June 2002; a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) on account of lack of legal assistance at the initial stages of police questioning; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of lack of a fair trial. Buldakov v Russia, 19 July 2011 No violation of Article 6 § 1; the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34. Gubiyev v Russia, 19 July 2011 A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Khashueyva v Russia, 19 July 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Mamed Bagalayev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mamed Bagalayev; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. Kondratishko and Others v Russia, 19 July 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the first applicant’s detention from 15 March 1999 to 24 November 2002 in Bryansk regional remand prison IZ-32/1; a violation of Article 3 on account of the third applicant’s ill-treatment by the police officers on 11 March 1999 and the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation. Larisa Zolotareva v Russia, 26 July 2011 A violation of Article 8. Liu v Russia (No. 2), 26 July 2011 A violation of Article 8. |
posted 11 Jul 2011 07:23 by Rights in Russia
[
updated 13 Sep 2011 09:24
]
Gerasiyev and Others v Russia, 7 June 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Valid Gerasiyev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Valid Gerasiyev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Valid Gerasiyev; a violation of Article 13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2. Gusak v Russia, 7 June 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1. Kosumova and Others v Russia, 7 June 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Abdul Kasumov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Abdul Kasumov disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Abdul Kasumov; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. Ryabikina v Russia, 7 June 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1. Vitayeva and Others v Russia, 7 June 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Magomed-Emi Kudayev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Magomed-Emi Kudayev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the first and second applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Magomed-Emi Kudayev; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. Denisova and Moiseyeva v Russia, 14 June 2011 Just satisfaction. Damages awarded. [In a judgment delivered on 1 April 2010 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights because the applicants had not had an opportunity to challenge effectively the confiscation measure imposed in the criminal proceedings to which they had not been parties (Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, 1 April 2010). Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicants sought just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision.] Khanamirova v Russia, 14 June 2011 A violation of Article 8. Movsayevy v Russia, 14 June 2011 A violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the abduction and subsequent killing of Salambek Movsayev. Petr Sevastyanov v Russia, 14 June 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unlawful composition of the court which convicted the applicant on 4 September 2000. Chudin v Russia, 21 June 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 8 June 2000 to 28 September 2004 in facility IZ-17/01 of Kyzyl, Tyva Republic; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention from 24 to 25 September 2003; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings against the applicant. Giriyeva and Others v Russia, 21 June 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Isa Aygumov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Isa Aygumov disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Isa Aygumov; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. Isayev and Others v Russia, 21 June 2011 A violation of Article 2 in respect of Zelimkhan Isayev’s death; a violation of Article 2 in that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into Zelimkhan Isayev’s death; a violation of Article 3 on account of the torture inflicted on Zelimkhan Isayev and the authorities’ failure to investigate it; a violation of Article 13. Makharbiyeva and Others, 21 June 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Adam Makharbiyev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Adam Makharbiyev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the first, second and third applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Adam Makharbiyev; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. Nakayev v Russia, 21 June 2011 A violation of of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s detention pending investigation and trial; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant; a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the trial court was not independent and impartial. Orlov v Russia, 21 June 2011 A violation of Article 3 as regards conditions of detention in the punishment cells of Rubtsovsk prison in 2005 and 2006; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with its Article 3; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) as regards the appeal proceedings in 2004 and 2008. Shimovolos v Russia, 21 June 2011 A violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 8. Zyklov v Russia, 21 June 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Kamaliyevy v Russia, 28 June 2011 Just satisfaction. Damages awarded. [In a judgment delivered on 3 June 2010 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 34 on account of the Government’s failure to comply with the interim measure ordered under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Under Article 41 the applicants’ representative claimed monetary compensation for the damage suffered by the first applicant, Mr Abdugani Kamaliyev, a national of Uzbekistan, as a result of the breach of Article 34 and costs. The question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision.] Miminoshvili v Russia, 28 June 2011 A violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the period of the applicant’s detention from 9 to 24 December 2002; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the period of the applicant’s detention from 28 May to 21 July 2003; a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the delays involved in the examination of the appeals against the detention orders of 2, 9 and 21 July 2003, and on account of the failure of the Moscow City Court to examine the appeal against the detention order of 7 October 2003; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) on account of the trial court’s failure to summon and examine witness M. on behalf of the applicant. |
posted 2 Jun 2011 14:12 by Rights in Russia
[
updated 2 Jun 2011 14:50
]
Kerimova and Others v Russia, 3 May 2011 A violation of Article 2 as regards the deaths of Adlan Kerimov, Lechi Albigov, Makharbi Lorsanov, Minkail Lorsanov, Aminat Abubakarova, Apty Abubakarov, Vakha Tseltsayev and Yakub Israilov and the failure by the respondent State to protect the right to life of the first and third to nineteenth applicants; a violation of Article 2 on account of the authorities’ failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of the incidents that resulted in the deaths of Adlan Kerimov, Lechi Albigov, Makharbi Lorsanov, Minkail Lorsanov, Aminat Abubakarova, Apty Abubakarov, Vakha Tseltsayev and Yakub Israilov and put the lives of the first and third to nineteenth applicants at risk; a violation of the second to nineteenth applicants’ rights secured by Article 8 and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in so far as the rights of the second to seventh and fourteenth applicants are concerned. Khamzayev and Others v Russia, 3 May 2011 A violation of Article 2 as regards the failure by the respondent State to protect the third applicant’s right to life; a violation of Article 2 on account of the authorities’ failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of the incident putting the third applicant’s life at risk; a violation of Article 8 in respect of the third applicant; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in so far as the first and second applicants’ property rights are concerned. Shokkarov and Others v Russia, 3 May 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Visita Shokkarov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Visita Shokkarov disappeared; a violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in respect of Visadi Shokkarov; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants on account of their moral suffering; a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Visita Shokkarov. Sutyagin v Russia, 3 May 2011 A violation of of Article 5 § 3 on account of the length of the applicant’s detention pending investigation and trial; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant; a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the trial court was not independent and impartial. Ilyadi v Russia, 5 May 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention in remand centre IZ-77/2 in Moscow from August 2003 to December 2004; a violation of Article 6 § 1. Popandopulo v Russia, 10 May 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in detention facility IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg from 6 May 2005 to April 2008, and no violation on account of the conditions of his detention in the above-mentioned facility from April 2008 to 7 September 2008 and from 7 June to 17 September 2009; a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy enabling the applicant to complain about the conditions of his detention; a violation of Article 3 under its substantive and procedural limbs on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment on 28 October 2007. Vadim Kovalev v Russia, 10 May 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison IZ-61/1 of Rostov-on-Don from 15 March 2004 to 21 April 2006; a violation of Article 5 § 3. Maayevy v Russia, 24 May 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Isa Maayev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Isa Maayev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Isa Maayev; a violation of Article 13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. Malika Alikhadzhiyeva v Russia, 24 May 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicant’s mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev; a violation of Article 13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2. Khodorkovskiy v Russia, 31 May 2011 A violation of Article 3 in respect of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison IZ-77/1 between 8 August 2005 and 9 October 2005; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the conditions in the courtroom before and during the trial; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (b) in respect of the applicant’s apprehension in Novosibirsk on 25 October 2003; a violation of Article 5 § 3 in that the applicant’s continuous detention was not justified by compelling reasons outweighing the presumption of liberty; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the procedure in which the applicant’s detention was extended at the hearings of 22-23 December 2003; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the procedure in which the applicant’s detention was extended on 20 May 2004; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the Meschanskiy District Court’s refusal to consider the applicant’s application for his release on 16 June 2004; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the speediness of review of the detention order of 19 March 2004. |
posted 10 May 2011 01:10 by Rights in Russia
[
updated 10 May 2011 01:11
]
Anufriyev v Russia, 5 April 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Kravtsov v Russia, 5 April 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1. Nikolay Fedorov v Russia, 5 April 2011 A violation of Article 3 as the applicant was subjected to treatment, which the Court considers to be inhuman and degrading in breach of the above provision; a violation of Article 3 in that the investigation concerning the use of force did not comply with the requirements of that provision. Vasyukov v Russia, 5 April 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to duly diagnose the applicant with tuberculosis and comply with their responsibility to ensure adequate medical assistance for him during his detention in the correctional colony before 1 September 2004. Republican Party of Russia v Russia, 12 April 2011 A violation of Article 11 on account of the authorities’ refusal to amend the State register; a violation of Article 11 on account of the applicant’s dissolution. Zolotareva and Others v Russia, 12 April 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Baturlova v Russia, 19 April 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence of the Town Court; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the quashing of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour on the ground of newly discovered circumstances; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Khrykin v Russia, 19 April 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence of the Town Court; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the quashing of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour on the ground of newly discovered circumstances; a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Matayeva and Dadayeva v Russia, 19 April 2011 A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of Khamzat Tushayev; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Khamzat Tushayev disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Khamzat Tushayev; a violation of Article 13 in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2. | |
posted 27 Apr 2011 03:38 by Rights in Russia
[
updated 27 Apr 2011 03:44
]
Elmuratov v Russia, 3 March 2011 A violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; 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 further order.
Khambulatova v Russia, 3 March 2011 A violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Timur Khambulatov’s death; a violation of Article 3 in respect of Timur Khambulatov. Kuptsov & Kuptsova v Russia, 3 March 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the first applicant’s detention in a cell for temporarily arrested persons; a violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of the period from 16 April to 1 October 2003; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of legal assistance at the hearing of 31 October 2002 and the absence of the first applicant and his counsel from the appeal hearing of 3 December 2002; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the length of the proceedings concerning the first applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 31 October 2002 and 14 February 2003; a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the unlawful composition of the trial court. Tsarenko v Russia, 3 March 2011 A violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s conditions of detention in remand centre IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention from 4 October 2008 to 28 May 2009; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4; a violation of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 3. Kiyutin v Russia, 10 March 2011 A violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8. Shandrov v Russia, 15 March 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1. Sizov v Russia, 15 March 2011 A violation of Article 5 § 3. Tsechoyev v Russia, 15 March 2011 A violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Suleyman Tsechoyev was killed. Esmukhambetov and Others v Russia, 29 March 2011 A violation of Article 2 on account of the authorities' failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Borambike Esmukhambetova, Elmurat Esmukhambetov, Eldar Esmukhambetov, Melikhan Abdurakhmanova and Bota Kartakayeva; a violation of Article 2 as regards the deaths of Borambike Esmukhambetova, Elmurat Esmukhambetov, Eldar Esmukhambetov, Melikhan Abdurakhmanova and Bota Kartakayeva; a violation of Article 13, taken in conjunction with Article 2 in respect of the first, second, third, thirteenth and twenty-second applicants, and a violation of Article 13, taken in conjunction with Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of all applicants; a violation of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of all applicants; a violation of Article 3 on account of the mental suffering endured by the first applicant because of the deaths of his wife and two sons. Murtazovy v Russia, 29 March 2011 A violation of Article 2 in respect of Ayub Murtazov; a violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Ayub Murtazov disappeared; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of Ayub Murtazov; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. Shchurov v Russia, 29 March 2011 A violation of Article 6 § 1. Vladimir Sokolov v Russia, 29 March 2011 A violation of Article 3 in respect of conditions of the applicant's detention in Nizhniy Novgorod remand prison IZ-52/1 and in Moscow remand prison IZ-77/3. |
|
