Review of ECHR decisions for 07/02/2025

CASE OF ITALGOMME PNEUMATICI S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

The case concerns access and inspection of business premises and professional activities premises by Italian tax authorities. The European Court of Human Rights found that Italy violated Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) due to insufficient legal safeguards against arbitrary interference.The Court found that the Italian legal framework did not adequately limit tax authorities’ discretion regarding conditions and scope of inspections. The law lacked specific criteria for authorizing inspections and did not require authorities to justify measures. Additionally, there was no effective judicial review system – taxpayers could not promptly challenge inspections and available remedies were uncertain.Key provisions of the decision:

The Court recognized that tax audits complement taxpayers’ duty to provide accurate information and authorities need relatively wide powers in initial phases
However, the law must still provide adequate safeguards against unfettered discretion
Italy must amend its legislation to:
- Clearly specify conditions for accessing and inspecting business premises
- Require authorities to justify inspection measures
- Establish safeguards against indiscriminate access
- Provide for prompt and effective judicial review

The Court awarded each applicant €3,200 in non-pecuniary damages. The decision establishes important standards for balancing tax enforcement needs with privacy rights in business contexts.

CASE OF UKRKAVA, TOV v. UKRAINE

The case concerns the Supreme Court of Ukraine’s interpretation of a provision of domestic law in a manner that was allegedly unforeseeable and contrary to the principle of legal certainty. The dispute arose between Ukrkava TOV (a Ukrainian company) and the State Savings Bank regarding a loan agreement and related mortgage.The key issue was the Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the statutory time limit for notarization of mortgage documents. According to Section 88 of the Notary Act, if both parties were legal entities, the time limit was one year, while in other cases it was three years. The Supreme Court decided to apply a uniform three-year limit regardless of the parties’ status, despite the clear and unambiguous wording of the law.The European Court of Human Rights found that this reinterpretation violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) because:

The Supreme Court’s interpretation contradicted the clear and unambiguous text of the law
The change resembled a statutory amendment rather than resolution of conflicting case law
There were no compelling reasons provided for such radical reinterpretation
The Supreme Court did not consider the effects on legal certainty
The interpretation made the outcome of proceedings unforeseeable

The Court emphasized that while courts can develop case law, they cannot simply refuse to apply unambiguous laws as a means of pressuring legislators to change them. The separation of powers between Parliament and judiciary must be respected.

CASE OF CALDARAR AND OTHERS v. POLAND

The case concerns the demolition of an unlawfully built Roma encampment in Wrocław, Poland in 2015, which raised issues regarding respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights found that while the demolition had a legal basis and pursued legitimate aims of public safety and order, the authorities failed to ensure proper procedural safeguards. Specifically, the applicants were not granted party status in the administrative proceedings, were not formally notified of decisions, and could not challenge the proportionality of the demolition orders before they were carried out. The Court’s key findings were:

The demolition interfered with the applicants’ right to respect for private and family life, even though their occupation was unlawful
The authorities failed to ensure the decision-making process complied with Convention standards by not allowing applicants to participate
While alternative accommodation was offered, the lack of formal notification and proper process caused anxiety and marginalization
The Court awarded €5,000 in non-pecuniary damages to each of the five applicant households

The judgment establishes important principles regarding procedural safeguards that must be provided even in cases of unlawful settlements, particularly concerning vulnerable minority groups. It emphasizes that while authorities may have legitimate reasons for demolition, they must ensure fair process and consider the human impact of such measures.

CASE OF GAYDASHEVSKYY v. UKRAINE

The case concerns a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) in proceedings against a Ukrainian national for driving under the influence of drugs. The European Court of Human Rights found that the Ukrainian Court of Appeal lacked impartiality when examining the administrative offense case against the applicant.The Court identified several key issues in this decision:

The absence of a prosecuting party at the Court of Appeal hearings, where no one supported the prosecution’s case against the applicant
The Court of Appeal’s actions in collecting evidence on its own initiative that was detrimental to the applicant
The confusion between the roles of prosecutor and judge, as the Court of Appeal actively searched for evidence to contradict the defense’s arguments

The Court distinguished this case from the previous Figurka v. Ukraine decision, emphasizing that here the applicant identified specific circumstances that cast legitimate doubts on the court’s impartiality. The Court found that the Court of Appeal’s actions in independently collecting and using evidence against the applicant created justified doubts about its objective impartiality, which violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.The most significant aspects of this decision are:

The Court’s emphasis on the importance of maintaining clear separation between prosecutorial and judicial functions
The recognition that a court’s active role in gathering evidence against the accused can compromise its impartiality
The clarification that even in minor administrative cases, the basic requirements of judicial impartiality must be maintained

CASE OF M.B. v. SPAIN

CASE OF ALEKSEYEV AND LYASHKOV v. RUSSIA

The case concerns complaints by two Russian citizens, Alekseyev and Lyashkov, regarding violations of their right to a fair trial due to their inability to participate in civil court hearings while being detained. The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in both cases.The Court examined two main aspects of the cases: first, whether domestic courts properly assessed if the nature of the disputes required the applicants’ personal presence, and second, whether courts established any procedural arrangements to ensure effective participation of the detained applicants in the proceedings. The Court found that in both cases, the domestic courts failed to meet their obligation to ensure respect for the principle of a fair trial.The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over cases involving Russia for events that occurred before September 16, 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention
The Court found violations of Article 6 § 1 regarding the unfairness of civil proceedings in both cases
In case no. 24732/17 (Alekseyev), the Court also found additional violations related to restrictions on family visits in detention facilities
The Court awarded compensation of 4,550 euros to Alekseyev and 1,500 euros to Lyashkov for damages and expenses

The most significant aspects of this decision are the Court’s reaffirmation of detainees’ rights to effectively participate in civil proceedings affecting them, and the obligation of domestic courts to either ensure their presence at hearings or provide alternative arrangements for their participation. The decision builds upon the precedent set in the Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia case regarding prisoners’ rights to participate in civil proceedings.

CASE OF BARAKHOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Barakhoyev and Others v. Russia, concerning multiple applications related to excessive pre-trial detention periods and violations of freedom of assembly rights. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding unreasonably long pre-trial detention periods ranging from 10 months to over 2 years.The decision addresses three main aspects:

The Court’s jurisdiction over cases involving Russia for events before September 16, 2022
Violations of Article 5 § 3 regarding excessive pre-trial detention
Additional violations related to freedom of assembly and procedural rights

Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court found that the length of pre-trial detention was unreasonably long for all applicants, with periods ranging from 10 months to 2 years and 8 months
The courts failed to provide sufficient reasons for extended detention, often using collective detention orders without proper individual assessment
The authorities made assumptions about risks of absconding or obstruction of justice without proper evidentiary basis
The Court awarded compensation ranging from 2,000 to 6,500 euros per applicant

The most significant aspects for practical application are:

The requirement for individualized assessment of detention necessity
The need for concrete evidence rather than assumptions when justifying pre-trial detention
The prohibition of collective detention orders without individual consideration
The obligation to consider personal circumstances that might reduce risks of re-offending or absconding

CASE OF BIKBULATOV v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Bikbulatov v. Russia concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. The Court found violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.The case concerns Mr. Bikbulatov’s complaint about the refusal of both long-term and short-term family visits while he was detained in SIZO-1 detention facility in the Republic of Tatarstan from June 2016 to March 2018. The Court maintained its jurisdiction over the case despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention in September 2022, as the events occurred before that date.The Court based its decision on its established case-law, particularly referring to previous similar cases (Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, Resin v. Russia, Chaldayev v. Russia, Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia). The Court found that the restrictions on family visits were not ‘in accordance with law’ and therefore violated Article 8 of the Convention.The Court also found a violation of Article 13 due to the lack of an effective domestic remedy for complaints about restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities, following its previous findings in Pavlova v. Russia. The Court determined that the finding of these violations would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in itself, without awarding monetary compensation.

CASE OF DVIGUN AND OVCHARENKO v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Dvigun and Ovcharenko v. Russia concerning unlawful searches conducted in the applicants’ premises. Both applicants were lawyers whose offices and residences were searched by Russian authorities without adequate safeguards and proper justification. The Court found violations of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) in both cases. The decision addresses two separate applications that were joined due to their similar subject matter. The first case involves Pavel Dvigun, whose office and flat were searched in 2011-2012 in connection with criminal proceedings regarding disclosure of state secrets. The second case concerns Sergey Ovcharenko, whose flat (also used as a secondary office) was searched in 2017 in relation to criminal proceedings against his client. The Court’s main findings include:

The searches were carried out without relevant and sufficient grounds
There were no special safeguards for lawyers regarding privileged materials
The search warrants were too broad in terms of content and scope
The police had excessive discretion during the searches
The Court awarded €7,500 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage

The most significant aspects of this decision are the Court’s emphasis on the need for special safeguards when searching lawyers’ premises, the requirement for specific and narrow search warrants, and the necessity of relevant and sufficient grounds for conducting such searches. The decision reinforces the Court’s previous case law on the protection of lawyer-client privilege and the need for proper judicial oversight of searches affecting legal professionals.

CASE OF GOLUBEV v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on the case of Golubev v. Russia concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. The Court found that Russia violated Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) by automatically restricting family visits without proper justification.The decision addresses two main aspects: first, the automatic application of restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities, and second, the lack of effective remedies to challenge such restrictions. The Court maintained its previous position established in earlier cases against Russia (Andrey Smirnov v. Russia and Pavlova v. Russia), confirming that automatic restrictions on family visits without justified security concerns violate the Convention.The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court’s jurisdiction over cases related to events before September 16, 2022 (when Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention)
The finding that automatic restrictions on family visits without factual justification cannot be considered ‘necessary in a democratic society’
The confirmation that Russian authorities failed to justify the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8
The award of 3,500 euros in damages to the applicant

CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF KLABUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Klabukov and Others v. Russia concerning unlawful searches conducted in the applicants’ residences. The Court found violations of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) due to searches being carried out without relevant and sufficient grounds and lacking proper safeguards.The decision combines two separate applications (nos. 46603/20 and 2455/22) involving searches conducted in 2020 and 2021 in Izhevsk and Volgograd. The Court maintained its jurisdiction over these cases despite Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention, as the events occurred before September 16, 2022.The Court’s key findings include:

The search warrants were issued in overly broad terms, with objects and documents not being specific enough to restrict police discretion
There were no adequate and sufficient safeguards against potential abuse of authority
In one case, the search was conducted without relevant or sufficient reasons, as the applicant was not even a suspect
The Court awarded each applicant 7,500 euros in compensation for damages and expenses

This decision follows the Court’s established case law, particularly referencing the precedents set in Misan v. Russia (2014) and Kruglov and Others v. Russia (2020), which addressed similar violations regarding unlawful searches.

CASE OF LASHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Lashkin and Others v. Russia, concerning four applications related to unlawful detention and other violations of human rights. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention regarding unlawful detention in all cases, as well as additional violations of other Convention provisions in some cases.The decision addresses several types of violations:

Unlawful administrative detention without proper documentation or justification
Criminal detention exceeding three hours without written records
Improper examination of entrapment pleas
Lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings
Violations related to freedom of assembly and expression

Key provisions of the decision include:

The Court’s confirmation of its jurisdiction over cases involving Russia for events that occurred before September 16, 2022
Recognition of violations where detention procedures failed to comply with domestic law requirements
Awards of compensation ranging from 3,000 to 5,600 euros per applicant
Requirement for Russia to convert compensation amounts into national currency at the rate applicable at settlement date
Provision for additional interest payment in case of delayed settlement

CASE OF LOBACHEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Lobacheva and Others v. Russia, which consolidated seven applications concerning various restrictions on freedom of expression in Russia. The Court found violations of Article 10 of the Convention in all cases, where applicants were convicted under Russian law for allegedly extremist activities. The Court examined cases where applicants were convicted for different forms of expression, including distribution of leaflets criticizing Putin, posting videos about investigations into officials’ assets, publishing photos of Ukrainian military units, and making social media posts. The penalties ranged from administrative fines to prison sentences of up to 9 years. The key findings of the Court were:

The Court maintained jurisdiction over these cases as the events occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention (September 16, 2022)
Russian courts provided inadequate safeguards against overly broad interpretation of the concept of ‘extremism’
The domestic courts failed to examine the cases in light of ECHR case-law principles
Each applicant was awarded 7,500 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage

The Court’s decision is particularly significant as it addresses the systematic issue of Russia’s broad interpretation of extremism laws to restrict freedom of expression. The judgment references the earlier case of Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, where similar violations were found regarding the overly broad definition of extremism in Russian law.

CASE OF LYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Lyanov and Others v. Russia, which concerned five applications against Russia related to torture or inhuman treatment by state authorities. The Court found violations of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) in all cases and awarded compensation to the applicants.The decision addresses cases where applicants were subjected to various forms of ill-treatment by state authorities, including abduction, beatings during detention, and violence during protests. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over these cases as the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention on September 16, 2022.Key provisions of the decision include:

Confirmation that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position, and authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being
The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force by State agents was not excessive
The Court found violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 of the Convention
The authorities’ refusal to conduct proper criminal investigations into credible allegations of ill-treatment constitutes a violation of procedural obligations
The Court awarded compensation ranging from 6,500 to 26,000 euros to different applicants

The most significant aspects of this decision are:

Reinforcement of the presumption in favor of applicants claiming to be victims of Article 3 violations when under police control
Emphasis on the state’s obligation to conduct effective investigations into allegations of ill-treatment
Clear statement that any use of force not strictly necessary constitutes a violation of Article 3
Confirmation of the Court’s jurisdiction over cases that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention

CASE OF MATVEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Matveyev and Others v. Russia, which consolidated five separate applications concerning violations of freedom of expression in Russia. The cases involved various forms of restrictions on freedom of expression, including defamation claims, administrative penalties for criticizing Russian military actions, and limitations on media publications.The Court examined cases involving: a regional parliament member who criticized a mayor’s birthday celebration; a media outlet’s publication about alleged financial irregularities in a charitable foundation; an NGO’s article about corruption in a correctional facility; publications by Navalny and Sobol about food quality issues in Moscow schools; and administrative proceedings against Royzman for criticizing Russian military actions in Ukraine.The key provisions of the judgment include:

The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over cases involving events that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention (September 16, 2022)
Recognition of Yulia Navalnaya’s standing to continue proceedings in her late husband’s case
Finding of violations of Article 10 of the Convention in all cases
Award of 7,500 euros in non-pecuniary damages to each applicant

The most significant aspects of the decision are the Court’s findings regarding:

The domestic courts’ failure to distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments in defamation cases
The lack of legitimate aim in protecting ‘business reputation’ of state bodies
The disproportionate nature of penalties imposed for criticism of state actions
The excessive amount of damages awarded in defamation cases

CASE OF NIKITIN v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Nikitin v. Russia concerning the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The case involved the domestic courts’ failure to ensure proper notification and participation of Mr. Nikitin in civil proceedings regarding his compensation claim against a hospital.The Court found that Russian courts violated the applicant’s right to a fair hearing by proceeding with the case without properly verifying whether he had been notified of the hearings’ date and time. The Court emphasized that domestic courts must make reasonable efforts to summon parties to hearings and ensure their effective participation in proceedings.The key provisions of the decision include:

Confirmation of the Court’s jurisdiction over cases involving Russia for events that occurred before September 16, 2022
Reaffirmation of the principle that courts must make reasonable efforts to ensure proper notification of parties about hearings
Recognition that domestic courts failed to assess the necessity of adjourning hearings pending proper notification
Award of 1,500 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs

The most significant aspects of this decision are the Court’s emphasis on:

The obligation of domestic courts to verify proper notification of parties
The requirement to assess whether proceeding without a party’s presence is justified
The principle that deficiencies in domestic courts’ reasoning regarding notification cannot be remedied retrospectively

CASE OF NOVAYA GAZETA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The case concerns multiple applications against Russia regarding various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, primarily involving media outlets and journalists. The Court examined 21 applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.The Court found violations of Article 10 of the Convention in all cases, which involved different types of restrictions: defamation proceedings, administrative fines for media content, website blocking measures, and searches of journalists’ homes with seizure of their equipment.The key provisions of the decision include:

The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over cases involving facts that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention on September 16, 2022
The Court found that Russian authorities failed to apply proper standards when deciding on defamation disputes and media content restrictions
The Court determined that searches of journalists’ homes and seizure of their equipment lacked proper procedural safeguards
The Court awarded various amounts of compensation to the applicants, ranging from 1,000 to 12,000 euros

The most significant aspects of the decision are:

Recognition that Russian authorities’ interference with media freedom lacked legitimate aims and proper legal basis
Finding that Russian anti-extremism legislation was excessively broad and lacked foreseeability
Confirmation that website blocking measures lacked sufficient safeguards against arbitrary application
Protection of journalists’ sources and materials through stricter requirements for searches and seizures

CASE OF S.M. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

The case concerns the disclosure of confidential medical information about a Moldovan citizen by his doctor during criminal proceedings, as well as subsequent forwarding of this information by state institutions without the person’s consent.The European Court of Human Rights found two violations of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life):1. The doctor (B.) disclosed information about the applicant’s sexually transmitted disease during witness testimony in criminal proceedings, even though this information was not requested by the investigator and was not relevant to the property crime being investigated. The Court found that domestic authorities failed to protect the applicant’s rights by not providing any convincing reason why the doctor could lawfully release such sensitive medical information.2. The Ministry of Health forwarded the applicant’s complaint containing his medical information to other state institutions (MTA and HDCM) without his explicit consent. The Court found this unjustified as the Ministry could have sought input regarding the doctor’s actions without specifying the applicant’s diagnosis.Key legal principles established in the decision:

Protection of personal medical data is fundamental for enjoying the right to private life
Medical information can only be disclosed with explicit consent or based on specific legal exceptions
When examining complaints about medical privacy violations, authorities must provide convincing reasons that outweigh the right to privacy
Using extra-judicial complaint procedures does not automatically imply consent to share medical information
State institutions must find ways to process complaints about privacy violations without further violating privacy rights

CASE OF SAMODUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The case concerns restrictions on freedom of expression in Russia related to artistic works and exhibitions that used religious imagery, where four applicants were sanctioned for allegedly offensive expressions concerning religious beliefs.The Court found that Russian authorities violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) in all cases by failing to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for interfering with the applicants’ freedom of expression. The Court awarded each applicant EUR 10,000 in damages and EUR 850 for costs and expenses.The decision establishes several key principles regarding the balance between freedom of expression and religious sensibilities. While states have a margin of appreciation in such matters, they must provide concrete justification for restrictions beyond mere offense to religious feelings.

Key provisions:

States cannot restrict expression solely based on offense to religious feelings or disapproval by the majority
Authorities must establish that contested statements constitute an improper attack on religious veneration or pose a genuine threat to religious peace
Religious groups must tolerate denial of their beliefs and even hostile doctrines
Restrictions cannot be based solely on the perspectives of a single religious tradition
Courts must consider the broader artistic and social context of expressions using religious imagery

Important aspects:

The Court emphasized that domestic courts failed to analyze how specific artworks could realistically threaten religious peace
The judgment criticizes the equation of mere offense to religious feelings with incitement to religious hatred
The Court found that Russian courts relied too heavily on Orthodox Christian perspectives, despite constitutional secularism
The decision reinforces that artistic expression involving religious themes deserves protection under Article 10

CASE OF SHARINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Sharina and Others v. Russia, which consolidated 17 applications against Russia concerning excessive length of pre-trial detention and other related violations.The Court found that in all cases, the length of pre-trial detention was excessive and violated Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The periods of detention ranged from 6 months to over 4 years, with courts failing to provide sufficient reasons for prolonged detention and not considering alternative measures.The key violations identified by the Court included:

Fragility of reasons employed by courts to justify detention
Use of assumptions without evidentiary basis regarding risks of absconding or obstruction of justice
Failure to assess personal situations that could reduce risks of re-offending or absconding
Use of collective detention orders in some cases

The Court also found additional violations related to:

Inadequate conditions of detention during transport
Use of metal cages in courtrooms
Restrictions on freedom of expression
Hindrance of right to individual petition
Permanent video surveillance of detainees
Disproportionate measures against participants of public assemblies

The Court awarded compensation ranging from 1,000 to 9,750 euros per applicant for damages and expenses.

CASE OF SUGROBOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Sugrobov and Others v. Russia, concerning seven applications against Russia regarding excessive length of pre-trial detention and related violations. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in all cases due to unreasonably long periods of pre-trial detention.The Court examined complaints from seven applicants who were held in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from approximately 2 to 4 years. The main violations identified included: fragility of reasons employed by courts for detention, use of collective detention orders, reliance on assumptions without evidentiary basis regarding risks of absconding or obstructing justice, and failure to assess applicants’ personal situations.The Court awarded compensation ranging from 2,700 to 4,300 euros to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs. Additional violations were found in some cases, including hindrance of the right to individual petition, violation of the presumption of innocence, and excessive length of judicial review of detention.Key provisions of the decision include:

Confirmation of the Court’s jurisdiction over cases involving Russia for events before September 16, 2022
Recognition of systematic problems with pre-trial detention in Russia, including inadequate justification for prolonged detention
Emphasis on the need for individual assessment of detention necessity rather than collective orders
Requirement for courts to provide specific, evidence-based reasons for continuing detention

CASE OF TASHUYEV v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Tashuyev v. Russia concerning inadequate conditions of detention during prisoner transport and unfair criminal proceedings. The Court found violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.The decision addresses three main aspects: jurisdiction over cases against Russia after its withdrawal from the Convention, conditions of detention during transport, and the right to effective participation in court proceedings. The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over events that occurred before September 16, 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention.The Court found that the applicant’s conditions during a 24-hour train transport were inadequate, with issues including lack of proper bedding, insufficient food, and cramped space (less than 0.5 square meters per person). The Court also established violations regarding the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage during trial proceedings, which impeded his ability to participate effectively in the proceedings and prepare his defense.Key provisions of the decision include:

Confirmation that less than 0.5 square metres of space per person during transport creates a strong presumption of Article 3 violation
Recognition that lack of sleeping places, inadequate water and food supply, and restricted toilet access during long journeys constitute violation indicators
Establishment that metal cage confinement during court proceedings can impair the right to effective participation in trial
Award of 1,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs

CASE OF TEREKHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision in the case of Terekhina and Others v. Russia addresses violations of freedom of assembly rights of several Russian citizens who participated in or organized public assemblies between 2015 and 2019. The Court found that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention by taking disproportionate measures against the applicants, including arrests and administrative penalties.The decision combines four separate applications against Russia, involving multiple applicants who participated in various public events, including a rally in support of N. Savchenko, Beslan Tragedy Remembrance Picket, opposition rally in Kaluga, and a rally calling for fair elections to Mosgorduma. The Court established its jurisdiction over these cases as the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention on September 16, 2022.The key provisions of the decision include:

Recognition of violations of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) in all cases, finding that interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly was not ‘necessary in a democratic society’
Establishment of violations regarding unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings
Award of compensation ranging from 4,000 to 5,000 euros per applicant for damages and expenses
Confirmation that the interference with peaceful assemblies through arrests, detentions, and administrative penalties was disproportionate

The most significant aspects of this decision are the Court’s consistent position on protecting freedom of assembly, its emphasis on the necessity for proportionate response to peaceful demonstrations, and the establishment of monetary compensation for violations of Convention rights. The decision also highlights the importance of having an impartial tribunal and proper procedural safeguards in administrative proceedings.

CASE OF VAKA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The case concerns complaints from five individuals against Russia regarding their unlawful detention pending removal from Russia. The Court found violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in all cases.The Court examined cases where individuals were detained for extended periods (ranging from several months to four years) pending their removal from Russia to various countries (Ukraine, Tajikistan, Syria, and Kyrgyzstan). The key issue was that the Russian authorities failed to pursue the removal proceedings with due diligence.The main provisions of the decision include:

The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over cases involving Russia for events that occurred before September 16, 2022 (when Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention)
While states have the right to control the liberty of aliens in immigration context under Article 5 § 1(f), such detention is only justified as long as deportation proceedings are actively in progress
The detention will cease to be permissible if proceedings are not prosecuted with ‘due diligence’

The most significant aspects of the decision are:

The Court awarded compensation ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 euros to the applicants
The Court emphasized that lengthy detention periods without active pursuit of removal proceedings (such as delays in obtaining documentation or verification of nationality) constitute a violation of the Convention
The decision particularly highlights cases where removal was practically impossible (such as with the first applicant who was later recognized as stateless) yet detention continued

CASE OF ZARIPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

The European Court of Human Rights judgment in Zaripov and Others v. Russia concerns seven applications against Russia related to cases of torture or inhuman treatment and lack of effective investigation of such incidents. The Court found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in all cases.The decision consolidates several cases where applicants were subjected to various forms of physical abuse by law enforcement officials, including during arrests, detention, and protests. The cases involved incidents that occurred before September 16, 2022, when Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention.The Court’s main findings include:

Confirmation of the Court’s jurisdiction over cases that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention
Recognition of violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 (prohibition of torture)
Establishment that authorities failed to conduct effective investigations into credible allegations of ill-treatment
Award of compensation ranging from 6,500 to 26,000 euros to different applicants

The Court emphasized several key legal principles:

The presumption of fact is in favor of applicants claiming to be victims of Article 3 violations when under police control
Authorities have a duty to protect detainees’ physical well-being
Any use of force not strictly necessary constitutes a violation of Article 3
The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that use of force was not excessive
Refusal to conduct proper criminal investigations into credible allegations of ill-treatment indicates failure to fulfill procedural obligations under Article 3