This week there were six judgments of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to Russia, finding violations of Article 2 (right to life), Article 5 (liberty and security), Article 6 (fair trial), Article 8 (private and family life) and Article 41 (just satisfaction).
AKMALOV v. RUSSIA, 9 March 2021
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 421, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 2,600, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (iii) EUR 2,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the applicant’s representative’s bank account, as specified by the applicant.
INDIRBAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 9 March 2021
A violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Mr Timur Chaplayev disappeared; that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, EUR 26,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
SOKIRYANSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 9 March 2021
The Court decides to revise its judgment of 23 June 2020 in so far as it concerns the claim made by the deceased sixth applicant, Mr Albert Sultanovich Khantygov, under Article 41 of the Convention; that the respondent State is to pay Ms Tamara Khasultanovna Amirkhanova, the heir of Mr Albert Sultanovich Khantygov, within three months, EUR 5,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
VOLCHKOVA AND MIRONOV V. RUSSIA, 9 March 2021
Translation from the French by Rights in Russia
Art 41 – Just satisfaction – Review aimed at awarding a sum for material damage to the heirs of the deceased applicant
The respondent State shall pay jointly Mr Yuriy Borisovich Mironov and Ms Zukhra Timurovna Fattakhova, the heirs of Mr Boris Petrovich Mironov (the applicant in application no. 2292/06), within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, USD 42,000 in respect of the material damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the exchange rate in force at the date of the settlement, together with any amount that may be due by way of tax.
ZININ v. RUSSIA, 9 March 2021
Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Fairness of the proceedings irreversibly undermined on account of applicant’s conviction as a result of police entrapment
Art 6 §§ 1 (criminal) and 3 (c) • Fair hearing • Court not persuaded by the evidence submitted by the respondent Government in support of their contention that the applicant had been duly summoned to the cassation hearing • Failure to inform the applicant and his lawyer of the cassation hearing • Breach of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms
A violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the complaint of entrapment; a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention concerning the complaint about unfairness of the cassation proceedings; 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 2,500, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
IKRAMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 11 March 2021
A breach 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 the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); that 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.
