Week-ending 30 April 2021
This week the European Court of Human Rights handed down nine judgments in cases concerning Russia, finding violations of Convention articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 5 (security and liberty of person), 6 (fair trial), 8 (private and family life) and 13 (effective remedy). On 26 April 2021 the ECtHR also published its response to an application by Aleksei Navalny, lodged on 20 January 2021 and communicated on 16 April 2021. In his application, Navalny complained that his life was under threat (Article 2) and he was subjected to torture (Article 3).
Cases:
ALIMPIEV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA, 27 April 2021
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention; a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; a violation of Article 8 of the Convention; a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts: (1) EUR 11,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 20, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses.
MÎRCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA, 27 April 2021
A violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation in respect of the first applicant’s ill-treatment, the second applicant’s insufficient medical treatment and both applicants’ inhuman conditions of detention; a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention by the Russian Federation; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by the Russian Federation; a violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the Russian Federation, both with respect to the censorship of the applicants’ correspondence in prison and the restriction of their right to family visits while in detention; a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention by the Russian Federation; the Russian Federation is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts:(i) EUR 20,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Alexei Mîrca; (ii) EUR 12,500, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Dumitru Mîrca; (iii) EUR 2,100, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses.
FIRSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 29 April 2021
A breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
LYGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 29 April 2021
A breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
RZHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 29 April 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 well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); 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.
SHTATSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 29 April 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 well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); 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.
SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 29 April 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 well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); 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.
VASILYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 29 April 2021
A breach of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
ZOKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 29 April 2021
A breach of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention; the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
Aleksey Anatolyevich NAVALNYY against Russia
lodged on 20 January 2021; communicated on 16 April 2021
Published on 26 April 2021
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the applicant’s allegations, is his detention compatible with his right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention?
2. Given the background of the applicant’s near-lethal deterioration of health induced by toxins in 2020 and its impact on his health, are the applicant’s current state of health, the medical facilities and treatment compatible with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?
3. Having regard to the conditions of detention and the aspects of prison routine as described by the applicant, has the applicant been subjected to ill‑treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Given the Government’s response to the Court’s decision to indicate, on 16 February 2021, an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, has there been a hindrance by the State with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention? Was there an objective impediment which prevented compliance with the Court’s Rule 39 measure? Did the Government take all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed of the situation (see Paladi v. Moldova [GC], no. 39806/05, §§ 88-102, 10 March 2009)?
