Source: http://www.rightsinrussia.info/archive/european-court-of-human-rights/2012/january
Timestamp: 2019-01-20 11:41:11
Document Index: 19574338

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3']

January - Rights in Russia
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
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
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
Slashchev v Russia, 31 January 2012
A violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with article 6 § 3 c) under its procedural limbs.
ECtHR January 2012.doc