CASE OF KHAMTOKHU AND AKSENCHIK v. RUSSIA
Hearing: Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia (nos. 60367/08 and 961/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-04-20 00:00:00)
Application no.: 60367/08
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-01-24 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0124JUD006036708
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 5;5-1;14;14+5
Judges: András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Guido Raimondi;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mārtiņš Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: YERMOLAYEVA N. ; MARALYAN A. ; DAVIDYAN E. ; MOSKALENKO K.
Issue: Articles 57 and 79 § 5 of the Criminal Code
Strasbourg case-law cited: A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, §§ 63-66, 29 October 2015;A.P. v. the United Kingdom, no. 15397/89, Commission decision of 8 January 1992 (striking-out);Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94;Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, §§ 115-18 and 140-43, ECHR 2010;Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 53, ECHR 2012;Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, ECHR 2016;Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, §§ 61 and 70, ECHR 2010;Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” (merits), 23 July 1968, § 9, Series A no. 6;Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, 13 July 2010;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 177, ECHR 2007 IV;Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 127, ECHR 2013;Derman v. Turkey, no. 21789/02, § 28, 31 May 2011;Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 81, ECHR 2007-V;E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 48, 22 January 2008;Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 40, ECHR 2002 I;Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 69, 8 July 1999;Hämäläinen v. Finland [GC], no. 37359/09, § 109, ECHR 2014;Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008;Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 56, Series A no. 23;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 68, Series A no. 28;Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 70, ECHR 2001 VI;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI;Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 36, ECHR 2000-X;Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, ECHR 2016;Nelson v. the United Kingdom, no. 11077/84, Commission decision of 13 October 1986;Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007;Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 73, ECHR 2006 XII (extracts);Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, Reports 1998 II;Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001 VI;Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, § 105, ECHR 2010;Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, ECHR 2010 (extracts);Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 104, ECHR 1999 VI;Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 102-104, Series A no. 161;Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, §§ 55-83, ECHR 2002 IV;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X;Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 118, ECHR 2014 (extracts);T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 117, 16 December 1999;Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26;Ünal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 54, ECHR 2004 X (extracts);V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 118, ECHR 1999 IX;Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts);X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, § 99, ECHR 2013
Conclusion: No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)
Separate opinion: TRUE