Week-ending 11 June 2021
This week the European Court of Human Rights handed down 13 judgments with regard to Russia, finding violations of Convention Articles 3 (prohibition on torture), 5 (liberty and security). 8 (private life), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (effective remedy).
FRISON v. RUSSIA, 8 June 2021
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts: (i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses.
MEN v. RUSSIA, 8 June 2021
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), 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 and paid into the account of the applicant’s representative, as indicated by the applicant.
NEPOMNYASHCHIKH v. RUSSIA, 8 June 2021
A violation of Article 11 of the Convention; the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros), 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.
SOTVOLDIYEV v. RUSSIA, 8 June 2021
A violation of Article 8 of the Convention; 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 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 1,920 (one thousand nine hundred and twenty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid to the representatives’ accounts as indicated by them.
TSUROYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 8 June 2021
A violation of the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants; a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Makhnychev; a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants; the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
BUBNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 10 June 2021
A breach of Article 8 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 (see the appended table [Article 13 – RiR]); the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 10 June 2021
A breach of Article 8 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 (see the appended table [Articles 3 & 13 – RiR]); 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.
GALSTYAN AND MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA, 10 June 2021
A breach of Article 8 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 (see the appended table [Articles 3 & 13 – RiR]); the respondent State is to pay the applicant, Mr Medvedev, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement.
KOSOUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 10 June 2021
A breach of Article 8 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 (see the appended table [Articles 3, 5 & 13 – RiR]); 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.
MERZLYAKOV v. RUSSIA, 10 June 2021
A breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see the appended table [Articles 3 & 13 – RiR]); the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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.
NAMCHYL-OOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 10 June 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 [Articles 3, 5 & 13 – RiR]); 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.
SUKHANSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 10 June 2021
A breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table [Articles 3 &13 – RiR]); 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.
YAROSHA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, 10 June 2021
A breach of Article 8 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 (see the appended table [Article 13 – RiR]); the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
