Source: http://www.rightsinrussia.info/archive/european-court-of-human-rights/2013/february
Timestamp: 2018-01-16 11:53:17
Document Index: 29560646

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 4']

Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: February 2013
ANDREY GORBUNOV v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2013
BAKOYEV v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2013
A violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 2 June to 28 July 2011 and from 2 September to 30 October 2011; 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 to Uzbekistan until such time as the present judgment becomes final or until further notice.
BUBNOV v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2013
No violation of Article 3 on account of the quality of medical services afforded to the applicant in detention.
GURENKO v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2013
A violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of provision of effective medical assistance to the applicant during his detention.
MKHITARYAN v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2013
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 4.
ZOKHIDOV v. RUSSIA, 5 February 2013
A violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s removal to Uzbekistan; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) in respect of the applicant’s detention from 14 July to 15 September 2010; a violation of Article 5 § 2; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the applicant’s inability to obtain a review of the detention orders of 15 July and 24 August 2010; holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34.
DZUGAYEVA v. RUSSIA, 12 February 2013
A violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
YEFIMENKO v. RUSSIA, 12 February 2013
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention; a violation of Article 13; a violation of Article 5 § 1; a violation of Article 8 on account of the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with correspondents at the national level; holds that the respondent State has not complied with its obligation under Article 34 on account of the monitoring of the correspondence between the applicant and the Court.
VASILIY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA, 19 February 2013
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention between 12 and 25 January 2005; a violation of Article 5 § 4 as regards the “speediness” of the review by the domestic courts of the remaining detention orders or requests for release; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the courts’ failure to consider the substance of the applicant’s request for release lodged on 9 December 2004.
YEFIMOVA v. RUSSIA, 19 February 2013
A violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) in respect of the applicant’s detention from 3 July to 18 November 2009; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the length of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s appeals against the court-issued detention orders, as well as lack of effectiveness of review of those detention orders; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the applicant’s inability to obtain a review of her detention between 3 July and 18 November 2009; 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.
ZUYEV v. RUSSIA, 19 February 2013
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention between 12 and 25 January 2005; no violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s detention between 25 January and 13 July 2005; a violation of Article 5 § 2; a violation of Article 5 § 4 as regards the “speediness” of the review by the domestic courts of the remaining detention orders or requests for release; a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the courts’ failure to consider the substance of the applicant’s request for release lodged on 9 December 2004.
FOMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 26 February 2013