Week-ending 18 December 2020
This week there were six judgments of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to Russia. The judgments concerned violations of Article 5 (liberty and security) Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (private and family life), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 10 December 2020
A violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table.
DVIRNIK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 10 December 2020
A violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
LITVINOVICH v. RUSSIA, 15 December 2020
A violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the non‑enforcement of the judgments of 2 August 2006 and of 27 May 2010 in the applicant’s favour; the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the domestic judicial decisions in the applicant’s favour which remain unenforced in so far as the arrears in index-linked periodic payments are concerned; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,900, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
LUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 15 December 2020
Art 8 • Respect for home • Disproportionate eviction orders from tied accommodation where applicants’ new flats were unfit for habitation • Interference notwithstanding that orders not yet executed • Failure of domestic courts to weigh the interests of the municipality against the applicants’ right • Shortcoming in the decision-making process
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts: EUR 5,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to Mr Lushkin and Mrs Lushkina jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 5,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to Mr Nagulov and Mrs Nagulova jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
A violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table.
YEVSTRATYEV v. RUSSIA, 15 December 2020
A violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
