Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (61)Zitiert selbst (24)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court therefore considers that the part of the applicant's complaints concerning the alleged unlawfulness of his detention before 24 September 2003 has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Salmanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 3522/04, 19 January 2006; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 44, 8 June 2006; Pavlík v. Slovakia, no. 74827/01, § 89, 30 January 2007; and Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, § 71, 24 May 2007).

  The Court reiterates that the trial court's decision to maintain a custodial measure would not breach Article 5 § 1 provided that the trial court had acted within its jurisdiction, had power to make an appropriate order, and had given reasons for its decision to maintain the custodial measure, for which it had also set a time-limit (see Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 152-153; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 62, 8 June 2006; and Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, §§ 41-46, 24 May 2007).

  Although the Court does not lose sight of the fact that in March 2000 the applicant allegedly violated the conditions of his release by leaving the town of his residence, and that there could have existed certain factors warranting the authorities" conclusion with regard to the applicant's potential to abscond, the domestic authorities never referred to or mentioned that fact in the detention orders and it is not the Court's task to take the place of the national authorities who ruled on the issue of detention (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 72, 8 June 2006).

• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 28957/02

  PSHEVECHERSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court reiterates that the trial court's decision to maintain a custodial measure would not breach Article 5 § 1 provided that the trial court had acted within its jurisdiction, had power to make an appropriate order, and had given reasons for its decision to maintain the custodial measure, for which it had also set a time-limit (see Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 152-153; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 62, 8 June 2006; and Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, §§ 41-46, 24 May 2007).

  In these circumstances, the Government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed in so far as it concerned the applicant's failure to appeal against the detention orders issued before 25 September 2003 (see Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 36, 14 December 2006, and Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, § 51, 24 May 2007).

• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court therefore considers that the part of the applicant's complaint concerning the detention after 24 December 2003 must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, § 74, 3 July 2008, and Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, § 63, 9 December 2008).

  The Court further observes that the Supreme Court's decision of 25 September 2003 could not have constituted a "lawful" basis for the applicant's detention in the preceding period (see Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, § 82, 3 July 2008, with further references).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  Indeed, the Court has already held that when detention on remand is found to have exceeded a reasonable time on the most recent date when an appeal court examined the detention matter, the detention after that date will also be found, except in extraordinary circumstances, to have necessarily kept such character throughout the time for which it was continued (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 12, Series A no. 9, and, most recently, Pshevecherskiy, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court therefore considers that the impugned period 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, 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 found not to have been "speedy").
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court therefore considers that the impugned period 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, 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 found not to have been "speedy").
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  It must be examined with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding and reoffending or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 43, Series A no. 207; and Panchenko, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  In the Court's view, this approach is incompatible, in itself, with the guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in so far as it permits the continued detention of a group of persons without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention or of compliance with the "reasonable-time" requirement in respect of each individual member of the group (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2004 - 72159/01
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02

  KUSMIEREK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 4459/03

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

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

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

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 74827/01

  PAVLIK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 14850/03

  MATYUSH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  IGNATOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 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; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; and Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016).
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Khudoyorov, cited above; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 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; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  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, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on numerous occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention whilst essentially relying on the gravity of the charges and using stereotypical formulae, without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 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; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016; and Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 138-40, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  [ENG]

  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, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that in the case of Mamedova v. Russia, which, like the present case, concerned appeal proceedings, it found that the "speediness" requirement was not complied with where the appeal proceedings lasted thirty-six, twenty-six, thirty-six, and twenty-nine days, stressing that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see Mamedova, cited above, § 96; see also, for longer delays, Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 112-114, 24 May 2007; Lebedev, cited above, §§ 98-102; and Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, §§ 104-106, 30 July 2009).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  20571/04.
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Indeed, the Regional Court had to assess the necessity of further extensions in the light of the entire preceding period of detention, taking into account how much time the applicant had already spent in custody (see, for similar reasoning, Lyubimenko v. Russia, no. 6270/06, § 62, 19 March 2009; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 132, 19 March 2009; and Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, § 80, 30 July 2009).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Khudoyorov, cited above; 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, cited above; 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, 13.11.2014 - 27335/13

  SHALYA 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 and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; 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; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10

  SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 45392/11

  PUSHCHELENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 18813/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8026/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 16783/20

  IRODOTOU v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 41970/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

  NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 34180/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  KALININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 6277/06

  LYUBUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51389/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 16120/07

  GORBATENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 8681/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 56097/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 21731/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 47537/11

  SKOROBOGATOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10

  DERGALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09

  YUGAY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10

  RODKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 7955/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10

  DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 69863/13

  DAVLYASHOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09

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

  BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 676/09

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 38911/07

  TUMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19857/09

  URMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 22727/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 5969/09

  RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12

  MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 41472/06

  CHERNOYVAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 7243/10

  YEVSTRATOV AND RUDAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10

  SHEPEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10

  ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 3243/06

  LOSEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29747/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 57005/18

  OSIPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 42080/11

  ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 59944/17

  RYLEYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 25071/07

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

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 80015/12

  DEVTEROV v. RUSSIA