Source: http://www.rightsinrussia.info/archive/european-court-of-human-rights/2014/june
Timestamp: 2018-03-18 23:22:28
Document Index: 503382000

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 4']

Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: June 2014
TERESHCHENKO v. RUSSIA, 5 June 2014
A violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Talovskiy Temporary Detention Centre and the Voronezh Remand Centre; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with its Article 3; a violation of Article 8 on account of the issue of visits in the detention centre.
BIBLICAL CENTRE OF THE CHUVASH REPUBLIC v. RUSSIA, 12 June 2014
CHUPRIKOV v. RUSSIA, 12 June 2014
A violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention between 13 July and 26 December 2006 and between 26 April and 28 June 2007; a violation of Article 5 § 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4; a violation of Article 5 § 5.
PRIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 12 June 2014
A violation of Article 11 in respect of the impossibility for the first and the third applicants to demonstrate on the morning of 25 April 2006 in Usukhchay.
GURGACH v. RUSSIA, 19 June 2014
A violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto on account of non-enforcement of the judgment of 10 June 2002 in the applicant’s favour.
PALACHEVA v. RUSSIA, 19 June 2014
SHEKHOV v. RUSSIA, 19 June 2014
A violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) on account of the absence of legal assistance in the appeal proceedings; holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.
UNIYA OOO AND BELCOURT TRADING COMPANY v. RUSSIA, 19 June 2014
A violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the applicant companies’ complaint that they had been unable to obtain an effective and timely judicial determination of their claims related to the seizure and destruction of the first consignment.
EGAMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA, 26 June 2014
Holds that the forced return of the applicant to Uzbekistan would give rise to a violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) in respect of the applicant’s detention in the framework 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 order.
GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA, 26 June 2014
Holds that in the event of the expulsion or exclusion order against the first applicant being enforced, there would be a violation of Article 8 in respect of both applicants.
KRUPKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 26 June 2014
A violation of Article 5; a violation of Article 9.
SHCHERBINA v. RUSSIA, 26 June 2014
A violation of Article 5 § 5, in conjunction with Article 5 § 1, on account of the unavailability of an effective compensatory remedy for the applicant’s unlawful detention between 28 February and 15 April 2011; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the delay involved in the judicial review of the applicant’s detention ordered by the prosecutor on 28 February 2011.