Week-ending 3 December 2021
This week the European Court of Human Rights handed down five judgments in relation to Russia, finding violations of Convention Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 5 (liberty and security of person), 8 (respect for family and private life), 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (effective remedy), 34 (individual applications) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).
30 November 2021
COLIBAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation; a violation of Article 5 of the Convention by the Russian Federation; a violation of Article 10 of the Convention by the Russian Federation; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the complaints concerning Article 3, 5 and 10 of the Convention by the Russian Federation; the Russian Federation is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts: (i) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicant’s representative’s bank account.
GOLUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
A violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention by the Russian Federation; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the complaint concerning freedom of movement by the Russian Federation; Russian Federation is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts: (i) EUR 6,500 (six thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 2,100 (two thousand one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicant’s representative’s bank account.
2 December 2021
GROMOVOY AND SHAYDULLOV v. RUSSIA
A breach of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
A breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (Article 34 – hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition); the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction (applicant Kuzmin received 1,000 euros under a friendly settlement).
A violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis); the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table 1,400 euros and 2,871 euros [under the unilateral declaration of the Government]).
