Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violations of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (123)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  However the Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by those authorities, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of her detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern her personal situation (see Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001).

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  The applicant was not obliged to co-operate with the authorities and she cannot be blamed for having taken full advantage of her right to silence (see, mutadis mutandis, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66; W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, § 42).

 
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  The Court considers that these four periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where the review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy").
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  In this connection the Court recalls that Article 5 § 3 obliges the "officer" to hear himself the accused, to examine all the facts militating for and against pre-trial detention and to set out in the decision on detention the facts upon which that decision is based (see Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, § 60, ECHR 1999-I; Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, § 31).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  The applicant was not obliged to co-operate with the authorities and she cannot be blamed for having taken full advantage of her right to silence (see, mutadis mutandis, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66; W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, § 42).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51; also see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  The possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, § 47).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 25792/94

  TRZASKA v. POLAND

• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

  MURSIC c. CROATIE

  Indeed, it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see, amongst many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006; Orchowski, cited above, § 153; Neshkov and Others, cited above, § 229; and Varga and Others, cited above, § 103).
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  However, the Court notes that, given the intangible nature of the right protected under Article 3 of the Convention, it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way that ensures respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  See, among other authorities, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 33, 30 November 2000; and Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 44, 9 January 2003.

 
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 43517/09

  TORREGGIANI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Or, il ressort des dossiers des présentes requêtes, ainsi que des rapports sur la situation du système pénitentiaire italien, non remise en cause par le Gouvernement devant la Cour, que les établissements pénitentiaires de Busto Arsizio et de Piacenza sont largement surpeuplés, à l'instar d'un grand nombre de prisons italiennes, si bien que le surpeuplement carcéral en Italie s'apparente à un phénomène structurel et ne concerne pas exclusivement le cas particulier des requérants (voir, notamment, Mamedova c. Russie, no 7064/05, § 56, 1er juin 2006 ; Norbert Sikorski c. Pologne, précité, § 121).

  Toutefois, elle rappelle qu'au vu du caractère intangible du droit protégé par l'article 3 de la Convention, l'État est tenu d'organiser son système pénitentiaire de telle sorte que la dignité des détenus soit respectée (Mamedova c. Russie, no 7064/05, § 63, 1er juin 2006).

• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle par ailleurs que dès lors que la liberté d'un individu est en jeu elle applique des critères très stricts pour déterminer si, comme il en a l'obligation, l'Etat a statué à bref délai sur la régularité de la détention (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Kadem c. Malte, no 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 janvier 2003, dans lequel la Cour a jugé excessif un délai de dix-sept jours mis pour statuer sur la régularité de la détention du requérant, et l'arrêt Mamedova c. Russie, no 7064/05, § 96, 1er juin 2006, dans lequel des délais d'examen d'appels - entre autres de vingt-six jours - ont été jugés contraires à l'exigence de « célérité'de l'article 5 § 4).
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 31147/20

  GASHKOV AND SATIROV v. RUSSIA

  Where an individual's personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State's compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting, inter alia, twenty-six days, was found to be in breach of the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4).

  Mamedova, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006).

  Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006).

• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  ISAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).

  The Court therefore finds that these two periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy").

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  SERGEY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court takes cognisance of the fact that in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention on the part of the authorities to humiliate or debase the applicant, but reiterates that, irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise their custodial system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006, and Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 37, 10 May 2007).

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the basis of the gravity of the charges and using formulaic reasoning without addressing the specific facts of the case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 106 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-49, 22 May 2012).

• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05

  ZUYEV v. RUSSIA

  In those four cases the Court found the conditions of detention in that facility to have been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 61-67, 1 June 2006 (detention from 23 July 2004 to 19 May 2005); Sukhovoy v. Russia, no. 63955/00, §§ 20-34, 27 March 2008 (detention from 8 January to 2 August 2000); Nazarov v. Russia, no. 13591/05, §§ 80-83, 26 November 2009 (detention from April 2004 to summer 2006); and Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, §§ 126-30, 24 June 2010 (detention from March 2004 to August 2007).

  The Court thus concludes that the periods in question cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially given that their duration was entirely attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not deemed "speedy").

• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  ADEN AHMED v. MALTA
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  MKHITARYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 36904/19

  BUTYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09

  TSARENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05

  VELIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 45373/05

  SHIKUTA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 38726/05

  PELEVIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  SADRETDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16264/05

  VASILIY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 22635/03

  SULEJMANOVIC c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  SHISHANOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  POLONSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 82348/17

  D.S. v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 29744/13

  ZOGRAFOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04

  PREMININY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16

  NIKITIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 67696/11

  ADEM SERKAN GÜNDOGDU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.02.2013 - 3252/09

  VECEK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  HADADE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  PIOTR BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 50956/15

  LEPESHKINA AND SHILOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65911/09

  SHYTI c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 42337/12

  SUSO MUSA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 58164/10

  BYGYLASHVILI c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 74279/10

  LICA c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 60272/08

  KARAMAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  IGNATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 29049/12

  STERGIOPOULOS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  SOPIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 48883/07

  MATHLOOM c. GRECE
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 34704/08

  NISIOTIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04

  ZAKHARKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  POPOV AND VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  N.K. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 48562/06

  KULIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03

  GENERALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 53267/18

  KOZLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 24655/16

  MUKHIN AND BASIYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 63458/19

  ASHIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10

  DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 5969/09

  RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09

  MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 57215/09

  BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12

  MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 76874/11

  DOHERTY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10

  ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 11677/11

  NIECIECKI c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 918/02

  SOLOVYEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 33123/08

  SIZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1066/05

  DOROGAYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 13173/02

  MUKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 10638/08

  ALEKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  MOSKOVETS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 42778/05

  GIOSAKIS c. GRECE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 32327/06

  POPKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  NOVINSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 6954/02

  MALTABAR AND MALTABAR v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 54994/18

  KOZHUKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 27425/19

  GULAMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 8588/20

  GUZHVA AND MUKHAMETZYANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 40045/20

  FEDAS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 41223/20

  BAYSHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 52023/08

  BOLDYREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2021 - 9146/20

  SHESTUN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2021 - 69522/17

  VOKHIDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 12590/17

  MERZLYAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 7118/18

  MAKARENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 17670/18

  DAVIDOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51389/07

  SHAGABUTDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 4345/06

  BURMAGA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34942/05

  KOLKUTIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13

  KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 35297/05

  ZENTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 10641/09

  USHAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

  CHUDUN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  ROMAN KARASEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 4320/05

  POLOVINKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14797/02

  ALEKSANDR MATVEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  SHULENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 14824/02

  SYCHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 43589/02

  SALAKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 7739/06

  SOROKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 6270/06

  LYUBIMENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 3584/02

  TARAU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 36205/06

  GIOSAKIS c. GRECE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 257/14

  BARBU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 39630/03

  RUSAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 28183/06

  HINDERBERGER v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 13541/06

  SHKILEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

  YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  KHUDYAKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 9205/18

  BIKBULATOV AND NEVOLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 20285/21

  PYZH AND DOBROVOLSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 4176/03

  DANILIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 41169/02

  KONONOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 34728/06

  CHIRYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA