Court : European Court of Human Rights
1. The case originated in an application (no. 1413/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (œthe Convention?) by a Russian national, Mr Damir Darifovich Sibgatullin (œthe applicant?), on 6 December 2004. 2. In a judgment delivered on 24 April 2012, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 38 of the Convention on account of the Governments failure to provide the Court with copies of witness statements requested by it at the communication stage. The Court also found a violation of Article 6 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the absence of a proper and adequate opportunity for the applicant to challenge the statements by the prosecution witnesses. The applicant was awarded 4,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. His remaining claims for just satisfaction were dismissed. 3. On 23 July 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : European Court of Human Rights
1. The case originated in an application (no. 62892/12) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (œthe Convention?) by a national of Uzbekistan, Mr Akram Akhmadovich Karimov (œthe applicant?), on 2 October 2012. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms N. Yermolayeva and Ms E. Ryabinina, lawyers practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (œthe Government?) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that in the event of his administrative removal to Uzbekistan he risked being subjected to torture and ill-treatment, that his detention pending extradition and administrative removal had been unlawful, and that no effective judicial review was available to him in respect of the latter complaint. 4. On 4 October 2012 the President of the First Section dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : European Court of Human Rights
1. The case originated in an application (no. 2173/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (œthe Convention?) by a Russian national, Mr Khanustaran Amanullayevich Khanustaranov (œthe applicant?), on 15 December 2003. 2. The Russian Government (œthe Government?) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. On 5 July 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Achisu, the Republic of Dagestan. A. Quashing by way of supervisory review 5. On 31 January 2005 the applicant applied to the district court for readjustment of compensation for damage to his sons health awarded by judgments of 13 August and 4 December 2002 against OAO Dagenergo, an open joint-stock company (œthe compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : European Court of Human Rights
1. The case originated in an application (no. 30212/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (œthe Convention?) by a Russian national, Mr Viktor Mikhaylovich Kuzmin (œthe applicant?), on 5 June 2006. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr P.V. Sedlyar, a lawyer practising in Novocherkassk. The Russian Government (œthe Government?) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. On 18 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Novocherkassk, the Rostov Region. He is a retired military serviceman. 5. On 25 March 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of Novocherkassk ordered the recovery of the applicants pension arrears for the period 1 January 1995 to 31 Janua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : European Court of Human Rights
1. The case originated in an application (no. 2746/05) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (œthe Convention?) by the four Russian nationals listed below (œthe applicants?), on 12 December 2004. 2. The Russian Government (œthe Government?) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The applicants complained that a lengthy period of non-enforcement of a domestic judicial decision delivered in their favour had violated their œright to a court? and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. 4. On 19 June 2009 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5. The applicants are Mr Oleg Yuryevich Kopnin, Mr Yuriy Olegovich Kopnin, Ms Natalya Borisovna Kopnina and Ms Olga Olegovna Kopnina, who were born in 1958, 1986, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : European Court of Human Rights
1. The case originated in an application (no. 9929/12) against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (œthe Convention?) by a Swiss national, Mr Stanislaw Jean Garcia Buchs (œthe applicant?), on 3 February 2012. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr N. Perret, a lawyer practising in Nyon. The Swiss Government (œthe Government?) were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Schrmann, of the Federal Office of Justice. 3. The applicant alleged that the domestic courts had infringed his right to the enjoyment of his family life and discriminated against him as a father on the ground of his sex. 4. On 7 September 2012 the application was communicated to the Government. 5. On 1 February 2014 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 1). This case remained with the Second Section (Rule 52 1). THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6. The applicant was born i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : European Court of Human Rights
1. The case originated in an application (no. 20261/12) against the Republic of Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (œthe Convention?) by a Hungarian national, Mr Andrs Baka (œthe applicant?), on 14 March 2012. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Cech, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Talldi, of the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice. 3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been denied access to a tribunal to contest the premature termination of his mandate as President of the Supreme Court. He also complained that he had been removed from office as a result of the views and positions that he had expressed publicly in his capacity as President of the Supreme Court. 4. On 29 November 2012 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : European Court of Human Rights
1. The case originated in an application (no. 17978/05) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (œthe Convention?) by two Lithuanian nationals, Mr Eduardas Albergas (œthe first applicant?) and Mr Jurijus Arlauskas (œthe second applicant?), on 4 May 2005. 2. The Lithuanian Government (œthe Government?) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Baltutyt—. 3. The applicants alleged that they had been deprived of their property by a decision of a domestic court and had not received adequate compensation, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 4. On 29 June 2012 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5. The first applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Vilnius. The second applicant was born in 1955 and according to the most recently available data, also lives in Vilnius. 6. In 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : European Court of Human Rights
1. The case originated in an application (no. 16032/07) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (œthe Convention?) by a Bulgarian national, Mr Velyo Nikolaev Velev (œthe applicant?), on 5 March 2007. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms E. Syarova, a lawyer practising in Stara Zagora. The Bulgarian Government (œthe Government?) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kotseva, of the Ministry of Justice. 3. The applicant alleged that he was not allowed to pursue his education while in Stara Zagora Prison, in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, and that he was treated as a œrecidivist? prior to a final conviction in his case, in breach of Article 6 2 of the Convention. 4. On 14 December 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5. The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Stara Zagora. In 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : European Court of Human Rights
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 346/04 and 39779/04) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (œthe Convention?) by two Turkish nationals, Mr Mustafa ErdoŸan and Mr Haluk KrŸad Kopuzlu, and a Turkish company, Liberte A. ž. (œthe applicants?), on 15 October 2003 and 16 September 2004 respectively. 2. The applicants were represented by Mr O. K. Cengiz, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (œthe Government?) were represented by their Agent. 3. On 4 March 2010 the applications were communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time (Article 29 1). THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4. The first and the second applicants were born in 1956 and 1975 respectively. 5. At the time of the events the first applicant Mr Mustafa ErdoŸan ...
Tag this Judgment!