Source: http://www.rightsinrussia.info/archive/european-court-of-human-rights/2014/october
Timestamp: 2018-03-22 09:53:13
Document Index: 483325854

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

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ST PETERSBURG AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 2 October 2014
A violation of Article 9, interpreted in the light of Article 11.
KOKSHAROVA v. RUSSIA, 2 October 2014
A violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the quashing of the final judgment by way of supervisory review.
MISAN v. RUSSIA, 2 October 2014
SMERTIN v. RUSSIA, 2 October 2014
KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA, 9 October 2014
LISEYTSEVA AND MASLOV v. RUSSIA, 9 October 2014
A violation of Article 13 in the present two cases on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the non‑enforcement of the final domestic judgments in their favour; a violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour.
SULTYGOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA. 9 October 2014
A substantive violation of Article 2 in respect of the applicants’ relatives Mr Alikhan Sultygov, Mr Visadi Samrailov, Mr Ruslan Yandiyev, Mr Nurdi Isayev, Mr Anzor Idigov, Mr Idris Saayev, Mr Rustam Amerkhanov, Ms Milana Ozdoyeva, Mr Ezir-Ali Shakhbiyev, Mr Abzu Shakhbiyev , Mr Sayd-Magomed Shakhbiyev, Mr Sharpudi Dubayev, Mr Magomed-Salakh Tekhiyev, Mr Timerlan Cholayev, Mr Apti Medzhidov, Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev, Mr Visarkhan Dokuyev and Mr Alu Bultayev; a procedural violation of Article 2 in respect of the failure to investigate the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives; a violation of Article 3 in respect of the applicants, on account of their relatives’ disappearance and the authorities’ response to their suffering; a violation of Article 5 in respect of the applicants’ relatives on account of their unlawful detention; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
ADEISHVILI (MAZMISHVILI) v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
A violation of Article 3; holds that there would be no violation of Article 8, should the applicant’s expulsion to Georgia be carried out.
BELOV v. RUSSIA. 16 October 2014
CHERNETSKIY v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
A violation of Article 3 in its substantive aspect; a violation of Article 3 in its procedural aspect.
EDUARD SHABALIN v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
A violation of Article 5 § 1 (c); a violation of Article 5 § 4.
GASANOV v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
ISTRATOV v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
KOSUMOVA v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
A violation of Article 2 in respect of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the applicants’ daughter’s killing.
LOSEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
MAKOVOZ v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
MOSTIPAN v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
MYSIN v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
A violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective domestic remedy for the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his pre-trial detention.
SERGEY BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA. 16 October 2014
In Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, the Court held there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective and accessible remedy that would have enabled the applicant to complain about the conditions of his detention in the correctional colony where he was serving a prison sentence and a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in correctional colony no. IK-2 in Livny, Orel Region, from 6 November 1999 to September 2013 Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros) in respect non-pecuniary damage.
SULDIN v. RUSSIA. 16 October 2014
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d).
VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
A violation of Articles 3 and 13; a violation of Article 5 § 3.
VOROZHBA v. RUSSIA, 16 October 2014
BOBROV v. RUSSIA, 23 October 2014
MAMAZHONOV v. RUSSIA, 23 October 2014
A violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to duly examine the applicant’s claims that he risked a real and imminent risk of torture and ill-treatment in Uzbekistan; a violation of Article 3 on account of exposing the applicant to a real and imminent risk of torture and ill-treatment by authorising his extradition to Uzbekistan; a violation of Article 3 on account of the failure of the national authorities to put in place protective measures against the risk of exposure to torture and ill-treatment after the applicant’s release from the detention facility; a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s disappearance; Holds that the respondent State has disregarded the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and therefore failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.
MELA v. RUSSIA, 23 October 2014
A violation of Article 3; a violation of Article 13; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c).
V.P. v. RUSSIA, 23 October 2014
A violation of Article 8 on account of the authorities’ lack of diligence in enforcing the Rîșcani District Court’s judgment in Russia.
BOGOMOLOV v. RUSSIA, 30 October 2014
A violation of Article 3 on account of inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison IZ-50/3 between30 June 2011 and 13 June 2012.
DAVYDOV v. RUSSIA, 30 October 2014
Aviolation of Article 6 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
NOSKO AND NEFEDOV v. RUSSIA, 30 October 2014
A violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of both applicants.
SIGAREV v. RUSSIA, 30 October 2014