Week-ending 27 November 2020
This week there were five rulings of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Russia, finding violations of Article 5 § 3; Article 5 § 4; and Article 6 § 1.
Article 5 § 3: Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
Article 5 § 4: Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily.
Article 6 § 1: In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of
any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair
and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be
pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded
from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order
or national security in a democratic society, where the interests
of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so
require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the
court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the
interests of justice.
MAKAROV v. RUSSIA, 26 November 2020: a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table.
MEDVEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 26 November 2020: a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning entrapment by State agents; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.
PRISHCHENKO v. RUSSIA, 26 November 2020: a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table.
SAFIN v. RUSSIA, 26 November 2020: a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; n a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table.
TYAZHKOV v. RUSSIA, 26 November 2020: a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table.
