Last updated: August 2021 Russia

Ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1998

National Judge: Dmitry Dedov (2013-2022) Judges’ CVs are available on the ECHR Internet site; Previous Judges: Vladimir Toumanov (1997-1998), Anatoly Kovler (1999-2012) List of judges of the Court since 1959

The Court dealt with 10,163 applications concerning Russia in 2020, of which 9,593 were declared inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 185 judgments (concerning 570 applications), 173 of which found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Applications Applications pending before the 2019 2020 2021* processed in court on 01/07/2021

Applications allocated 12665 8906 3943 Applications pending before a judicial 14303 to a judicial formation formation: Communicated to the 1605 2519 459 Single Judge 674 Government Applications decided: 9238 10163 3222 Committee (3 Judges) 10943

- Declared inadmissible 7849 6509 2467 Chamber (7 Judges) 2678 or struck out (Single Judge) Grand Chamber (17 Judges) 8 - Declared inadmissible 927 3072 298 or struck out (Committee) - Declared inadmissible 17 12 3 or struck out Russia and ... (Chamber) - Decided by judgment 445 570 454 The Registry * January to July 2021 The task of the Registry is to provide For information about the Court’s judicial formations legal and administrative support to the and procedure, see the ECHR internet site. Court in the exercise of its judicial Statistics on interim measures can be found here. functions. It is composed of lawyers, administrative and technical staff and translators. There are currently 624 Registry staff members.

Press country profile - Russia

Moldova, and violation of Article 8 by Noteworthy cases, judgments Russia; No violation of Article 9 (freedom of delivered thought, conscience and religion) by the Republic of Moldova, and violation of Article Grand Chamber 9 by Russia No violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Right to life Articles 3, 8 and 9 by the Republic of (Article 2) Moldova, and violation of Article 13 in

conjunction with Articles 3, 8 and 9 by Nagmetov v. Russia Russia 30.03.2017 The Court further held that the facts The case concerned the issue of whether an complained of fell within the jurisdiction of award of just satisfaction could be made in both the Republic of Moldova and of Russia. the absence of a properly made “claim”. Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia Violation of Article 2 under its substantive and procedural limbs 17.07.2014 The case essentially concerned the practice Just satisfaction awarded to the applicant of keeping remand prisoners in metal cages during hearings on their cases. Prohibition of inhuman and degrading Violation of Article 3 treatment Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial (Article 3) within a reasonable time)

Janowiec and Others v. Russia Z.A. and Others v. Russia 21.10.2013 21.11.2019 The case concerned complaints by relatives Blokhin v. Russia of victims of the 1940 Katyń massacre – 23.03.2016 the killing of several thousands of Polish The case concerned the detention for prisoners of war by the Soviet secret police 30 days of a 12-year old boy, who was (NKVD) – that the Russian authorities’ suffering from a mental and investigation into the massacre had been neurobehavioural disorder, in a temporary inadequate. detention centre for juvenile offenders. The Court held: Violation of Article 3 - that it had no competence to examine the Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty complaints under Article 2 (right to life) and security) - that there had been no violation of Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a Article 3 fair trial) - that Russia had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 38 (obligation to Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and furnish necessary facilities for examination Russia of the case). 23.02.2016 Press release available in Polish and The case concerned the detention of a man Russian. suspected of fraud, as ordered by the Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and courts of the self-proclaimed “Moldavian Russia Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”). No violation of Article 3 by the Republic of 08.07.2004 Moldova, and violation of Article 3 of the Detention and ill-treatment in the Convention by Russia unrecognised entity known as “Moldovan No violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty Republic of Transdnistria”. and security) by the Republic of Moldova, Several violations of Article 3 and violation of Article 5 § 1 by Russia Russian version press release. No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) by the Republic of

2

Press country profile - Russia

Right to liberty and security refusal to call two attesting witnesses to (Article 5) testify during the trial The Court also declared a complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) about the courts’ Z.A. and Others v. Russia failure to call another witness, a police 21.11.2019 officer, to testify at the trial inadmissible as The case concerned four men who were being ill-founded. held for long periods of time in the transit zone of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport Sakhnovskiy v. Russia while the authorities dealt with their asylum 02.11.2010 applications. They all eventually left Russia The case concerned ineffective legal after living in the transit zone. assistance during appeal proceedings in a Violation of Article 5 § 1 criminal case. Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair and inhuman or degrading treatment) trial) in conjunction with article 6 § 3 (right to effective legal assistance) Navalnyy v. Russia 15.11.2018 The case concerned Mr Navalnyy’s Private and family life complaint that his arrest, detention and (Article 8) administrative conviction on seven occasions in 2012 and 2014 had breached Roman Zakharov v. Russia his rights and had been politically 04.12.2015 motivated. The case concerned the system of secret Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty interception of mobile telephone and security/lawfulness of arrest or communications in Russia. The applicant, detention) an editor-in-chief of a publishing company, Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair complained in particular that mobile trial) as regards six sets of administrative network operators in Russia were required proceedings by law to install equipment enabling No violation of Article 6 § 1 over a seventh law-enforcement agencies to carry out set of administrative proceedings operational-search activities and that, Violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly without sufficient safeguards under Russian and association) law, this permitted blanket interception of Violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of communications. restrictions on rights) Violation of Article 8

Press release in Russian. Cases on Article 6 Khoroshenko v. Russia

30.06.2015 Murtazaliyeva v. Russia The case concerned the complaint by a life 18.12.2018 prisoner about various restrictions on family The case concerned the applicant’s being visits during ten years of his detention in a found guilty of terrorism charges and her special regime correctional colony. complaint that the trial had not been fair Violation of Article 8 because she had not been able properly to Bykov v. Russia view a police video surveillance tape in 10.03.2009 court and that the courts had refused to call The case concerned the FSB’s covert three witnesses in her defence. operation to obtain evidence of the No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) applicant’s intention to commit murder. (right to a fair trial / preparation of Violation of Article 8 defence) as regards the applicant allegedly being unable to view a videotape during her trial No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial / examination of witnesses) as regards the domestic courts’

- 3 -

Press country profile - Russia

pupils and teachers from Discrimination (Article 14) Moldovan/Romanian-language schools as well as forcing the schools to close down Konstantin Markin v. Russia and reopen in different premises. No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 22.03.2012 (right to education) to the European The case concerned the Russian authorities’ Convention on Human Rights in respect of refusal to grant the applicant parental the Republic of Moldova; and, leave, which represented a difference in Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in treatment compared to female military respect of the Russian Federation personnel. Russian version Press Release Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with article 8 (right to protection of private and family life) Right not to be tried or punished twice No violation of Article 34 (right to an (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7) individual petition) Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia 24.01.2017 10.02.2009 The case concerned an allegation of The case concerned imposition of discriminatory age- and gender-related administrative sanctions and criminal differences in life sentences. conviction for the same offence. The applicants alleged that, as adult males Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 serving life sentences for a number of serious criminal offences, they had been discriminated against as compared to other Interstate cases categories of convicts – women, persons under 18 when their offence had been Georgia v. Russia (II) committed or over 65 when the verdict had 21.01.2021 been delivered – who were exempt from life The case concerned allegations by the imprisonment by operation of the law. Georgian Government of administrative No violation of Article 14 taken in practices on the part of the Russian conjunction with Article 5 (right to liberty Federation entailing various breaches of the and security), as regards the difference in Convention, in connection with the armed treatment in life sentencing in Russia on conflict between Georgia and the Russian account of age Federation in August 2008. No violation of Article 14, taken in Information on the Court’s judgement can conjunction with Article 5, as regards the be found in this press release. difference in treatment on account of sex Georgia v. Russia (I) 03.07.2014 Right to education The case concerned the alleged existence of (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1) an administrative practice involving the arrest, detention and collective expulsion of Georgian nationals from the Russian Catan and Others v. Moldova and Federation in the autumn of 2006. Russia (applications nos. 43370/04, Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 8252/05 and 18454/06) (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) 19.10.2012 Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty The case concerned the complaint by and security) children and parents from the Moldovan Violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to judicial community in Transdniestria about the review of detention) effects of a language policy adopted in Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of 1992 and 1994 by the separatist regime inhuman or degrading treatment) forbidding the use of the Latin alphabet in Violations of Article 13 (right to an effective schools and the subsequent measures remedy) in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 taken to enforce the policy. Those and with Article 3 measures included the forcible eviction of

- 4 -

Press country profile - Russia

Violation of Article 38 (obligation to furnish Gasangusenov v. Russia all necessary facilities for the effective 30.03.2021 conduct of an investigation) The case concerned the killing of the The Court also found no violation of Article applicant’s two sons, who worked as 8 (right to respect for private and family shepherds, during a special operation life), no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. carried out by State agents in August 2016 7 (procedural safeguards relating to in Goor-Khindakh, Dagestan (Russia). It expulsion of aliens) and no violation of also concerned the ensuing investigation. Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property and right to Baysultanov v. Russia education). 04.02.2020 On 31 January 2019, the Court decided on The case concerned a police operation to the question of just satisfaction. detain the leader of an illegal armed group, It held that Russia had to pay Georgia which resulted in the applicant’s wife being 10,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of killed and the applicant being wounded. non-pecuniary damage suffered by a group Vovk and Bogdanov v. Russia of at least 1,500 Georgian nationals; that 11.02.2020 that amount was to be distributed to the The case concerned the authorities’ alleged individual victims by paying EUR 2,000 to failure to conduct an effective investigation the Georgian nationals who had been into the explosion of a grenade in a victims only of a violation of Article 4 of residential area of Chita in April 2008 and Protocol No. 4 (collective expulsion), and their refusal to pay the victims EUR 10,000 to EUR 15,000 to those among compensation. them who had also been victims of a violation of Article 5 § 1 (unlawful Styazhkova v. Russia deprivation of liberty) and Article 3 14.01.2020 (inhuman and degrading conditions of The case concerned the applicant’s detention), taking into account the length allegation that the official explanation of of their respective periods of detention. suicide for her son’s death during his military service was not convincing. Noteworthy cases, judgments No violation of Article 2 because the suicide explanation was not improbable and there delivered was no evidence to prove that the authorities should have known that the Chamber applicant’s son had been suicidal and could have prevented it Violation of Article 2 as concerned the Right to life investigation into the son’s death which had (Article 2) not been adequate or effective, and had

never considered any alternative to suicide Violation of Article 2 Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of Estemirova v. Russia inhuman or degrading treatment) because 31.08.2021 the applicant’s son had been punched and The case concerned the abduction and hit with a rifle by his superior and another murder of a well-known human-rights solider for falling asleep while on sentry activist, Natalia Estemirova, and the duty just two hours before his alleged effectiveness of the ensuing investigation. suicide No violation of Article 2 (right to life) Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia Violation of Article 2 (investigation) 27.08.2019 Failure by the Government to comply with The case concerned Sergei Magnitskiy, an their obligations under Article 38 auditor charged with organised tax evasion (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for who died in pre-trial detention in November the examination of a case) 2009. He was later convicted posthumously. Violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 2

- 5 -

Press country profile - Russia

Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of ill- The Court found in particular that while the treatment) owing to the conditions of authorities had found and convicted a Mr Magnitskiy’s detention group of men who had directly carried out Violation of Article 3 owing to the contract killing of Ms Politkovskaya, Mr Magnitskiy’s ill-treatment by prison they had failed to take adequate guards and the lack of an effective investigatory steps to find the person or investigation into that issue persons who had commissioned the Violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty murder. and security) owing to the length of his Tagayeva and Others v. Russia detention Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a 13.04.2017 fair trial and presumption of innocence) The case concerned the September 2004 owing to the posthumous proceedings and terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, North his conviction Ossetia (Russia). For over fifty hours The Court also rejected a complaint under heavily armed terrorists held captive over Article 5 § 1 about Mr Magnitskiy’s arrest 1,000 people, the majority of them and detention as ill-founded. children. Following explosions, fire and an The Court found in particular that the armed intervention, over 330 people lost medical care given to Mr Magnitskiy in their lives (including over 180 children) and prison had been inadequate and had led to over 750 people were injured. The case was his death and that the subsequent brought by 409 Russian nationals who had investigation had been lacking. He had also either been taken hostage and/or injured in been held in over-crowded conditions and the incident, or are family members of had been ill-treated shortly before dying. those taken hostage, killed or injured. They Furthermore, the Court found that the made allegations of a range of failings by proceedings for his conviction after his the Russian State in relation to the attack. death had been inherently unfair. Press release in Russian. Anoshina v. Russia Maslova v. Russia 26.03.2019 14.02.2017 The case concerned the murder of the The case concerned the death of the applicant’s brother by a police officer while applicant’s brother in a police station. he was being held in a sobering-up centre. S.K. v. Russia (no. 52722/15) Khodyukevich v. Russia 14.02.2017 28.08.2018 The case concerned a decision by the The case concerned the circumstances Russian authorities to detain a Syrian surrounding the death of the applicant’s son national, S.K., and remove him to his home (Mr Alchin) and the subsequent country. In October and November 2015 investigation. The applicant alleged that her S.K. obtained an interim measure from the son had died as a result of ill-treatment by European Court, indicating that he should officers at a police station. She also cast not be removed from Russia whilst the doubt on the independence of the person in Court examined his case. charge of the investigation, on the grounds Gerasimenko and Others v. Russia that the investigator was attached to the 01.12.2016 same police station as the officers likely to The case concerned a shooting spree be implicated. carried out by a uniformed police officer No violation of the substantive aspect of that took place in and around a shopping Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of centre in Moscow, in the early hours of inhuman or degrading treatment) 27 April 2009. The applicants were all Violation of the procedural aspect of Articles wounded in the attack. They lodged claims 2 and 3 for damages against the Russian State, Mazepa and Others v. Russia arguing that the incident was made possible 17.07.2018 due to serious failures by the Government The case concerned the investigation into authorities. The claims were all dismissed the 2006 murder of journalist Anna by the domestic courts. The applicants Politkovskaya. complained to the Court that the

- 6 -

Press country profile - Russia

Government had failed in its obligation to gas by the Russian security services during safeguard their lives, and that they had the rescue operation. been denied a remedy for this failure. No violation of Article 2 concerning the decision to resolve the hostage crisis by Mezhiyeva v. Russia force and use gas; 16.04.2015 Violation of Article 2 concerning the The case concerned a bomb explosion in inadequate planning and implementation of Grozny (the Chechen Republic, Russia) in the rescue operation; 2001, which killed a bus driver and left his Violation of Article 2 concerning the wife – the applicant in this case – severely ineffectiveness of the investigation into the injured. allegations of the authorities’ negligence in Pisari v. the Republic of Moldova and planning and carrying out the rescue Russia operation as well as the lack of medical 21.04.2015 assistance to hostages. The case addressed the question of State Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia responsibility for the actions of a Russian 07.01.2010 soldier at a peacekeeping checkpoint in Cypriot and Russian authorities failed to Moldova which resulted in the death of a protect a 20-year old Russian cabaret young man, Vadim Pisari. The checkpoint in artiste from human trafficking. question was situated in the security zone put in place following an agreement to end Budayeva and Others v. Russia the military conflict in the Transdniestrian 20.03.2008 region of Moldova in 1992 and was under The case concerned the state’s failure to the command of Russian soldiers. The case protect residents of Tyrnauz hit by a also concerned the manner in which the succession of mudslides. subsequent investigation into his death was run. No violation of Article 2 The Court held that the Russian Federation Estemirova v. Russia should be held responsible for consequences arising from a Russian 31.08.2021 soldier’s actions even though they had not The case concerned the abduction and occurred in Russia. Indeed, the Russian murder of a well-known human-rights Government had not objected to the activist, Natalia Estemirova, and the allegation that Vadim Pisari had been under effectiveness of the ensuing investigation. their jurisdiction or that his death had been No violation of Article 2 (right to life) their responsibility. The Court further found Violation of Article 2 (investigation) that the Russian soldier’s decision to shoot Failure by the Government to comply with at the passing vehicle had not been their obligations under Article 38 justified and identified procedural problems (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for with the Russian investigation into the case. the examination of a case) Perevedentsevy v. Russia Inadmissible decision 24.04.2014 Plotnikov v. Russia The case concerned the death of a 19-year 20.12.2018 old conscript, Mikhail Perevedentsev, during The case concerned the death of the his military service. applicant’s daughter from a meningitis Finogenov and Others v. Russia infection and his complaint of the lack of an effective investigation. 20.12.2011 Application declared inadmissible as The case was brought by relatives of the manifestly ill-founded. victims of the tragic events in the

“Dubrovka” theatre in October 2002 in Moscow (also known as the “Nord-Ost” North Caucasus related cases theatre) and concerns the measures taken Abdulkhanov and Others v. Russia by the authorities to prevent the terrorist attack and the subsequent use of a narcotic 03.10.2013 The case concerned a Russian military

- 7 -

Press country profile - Russia

strike on a village in Chechnya in President, or the investigation into his February 2000, which killed 18 of the death applicants’ relatives. in the case of Sabanchiyeva and Others no Violation of Article 2 (right to life) violation of Article 3 (prohibition inhuman Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective or degrading treatment) as concerned the remedy) conditions in which the bodies of the For the first time in a case concerning the applicants’ relatives had been stored for armed conflict in Chechnya, the Russian identification, and, no violation of Article 38 Government acknowledged that there had § 1 (a) (obligation to provide necessary been a violation of Article 2, both as facilities for the examination of the case). regards the use of lethal force and as Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia regards the authorities’ obligation to investigate its circumstances. 18.12.2012 The case concerned the disappearances of Turluyeva v. Russia eight men in Chechnya between March 20.06.2013 2002 and July 2004, after having been Concerned the disappearance of a young arrested in a manner resembling a security man after last having been seen at the operation. premises of a police regiment in Grozny The Court found in particular violations of (Chechnya) in October 2009. Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of Three violations of Article 2 (right to life) on inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 account of Sayd-Salekh Ibragimov’s (right to liberty and security). presumed death, on account of the State’s It noted that it had regularly found failure to protect his life, and, on account of violations of the same rights in similar the failure to conduct an effective cases in more than 120 judgments, investigation into his disappearance resulting from the disappearances in the Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture Northern Caucasus since 1999. It concluded and of inhuman or degrading treatment), that the situation in the case of on account of Ms Turluyeva’s suffering Aslakhanova and Others had resulted from resulting from her inability to findout about a systemic problem of non-investigation of what happened to her son such crimes, for which there had been no Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and effective remedy at national level. security), on account of Sayd-Salekh The Court outlined two types of general Ibragimov’s unlawful detention measures, under Article 46 (binding force Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective and execution of judgments), to be taken remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 by Russia to address those problems: to alleviate the continuing suffering of the Maskhadova and Others v. Russia victims’ families; and, to remedy the Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia structural deficiencies of the criminal 06.06.2013 proceedings (corresponding strategy to be Both cases essentially concerned the submitted to the Committee of Ministers Russian authorities’ refusal to return the without delay). bodies of the Chechen separatist President and insurgents to their families. Albekov and Others v. Russia Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for 09.10.2008 private and family life) and Article 13 (right Khamidov v. Russia to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 8 and no violation 15.11.2007 of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) Chitayev v. Russia taken in conjunction with Article 8 in both 18.01.2007 cases as concerned the authorities’ refusal to return to the applicants the bodies of Bazorkina v. Russia their deceased relatives; 27.07.2006 No violation of Article 2 (right to life and Estamirov and Others v. Russia investigation) in the case of Maskhadova and Others as concerned the death of Aslan 12.10.2006 Maskhadov, the Chechen separatist

- 8 -

Press country profile - Russia

Isayeva v. Russia regime, which had been applied to him for 24.02.2005 several years on the sole grounds of his life These are the first of a group of cases sentence. (about 210 judgments delivered so far and The Court considered that the violation about 330 related cases pending) found in the case disclosed a systemic concerning events in Chechnya and in problem which affected each life prisoner particular: indiscriminate use of lethal during the first ten years of his force, extra-judicial executions, unlawful imprisonment and gave suggestions for the detention, torture and ill-treatment, measures which could be taken for reform. disappearances, damage to and destruction Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine of property, landmines, restrictions on and Udaltsov v. Russia freedom of movement, and lack of effective 19.11.2019 domestic remedies. In most of them at least one violation was A v. Russia (no. 37735/09) found. 12.11.2019 Violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 The case concerned the applicant’s (prohibition of inhuman or degrading allegation that she had been traumatised treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), by witnessing her father’s violent arrest by 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to the police when she was nine years old. respect for private and family life), 13, 38 § 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary Izmestyev v. Russia facilities for the examination of the case) 27.08.2019 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of The case concerned criminal proceedings property) which led to the applicant being sentenced to life imprisonment. His complaints concerned the security cameras which Inhuman or degrading treatment operated in his cell 24 hours a day, (Article 3) restrictions on family visits, the length of his pre-trial detention, his conditions of Violation of Article 3 detention and the fact that the proceedings Shlykov and Others v. Russia were held behind closed doors. Violation of Article 3 with regard to 19.01.2021 Mr Izmestyev’s conditions of detention from The case concerned the applicants’ being 30 November 2007 to 6 November 2011 handcuffed every time they left their prison and the conditions in which he was cells. It also concerned the conditions of the transported to and from the courthouse prison regime applied to one applicant, and during the criminal proceedings against him access to civil proceedings to complain of Violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty their handcuffing for another two of the and security) applicants. Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair Navalnyy and Gunko v. Russia trial) 10.11.2020 Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for The case concerned two protesters’ arrest private and family life at Bolotnaya Square in May 2012 during a Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia political rally followed by their overnight 27.08.2019 detention at a police station and their The case concerned Sergei Magnitskiy, an administrative conviction for disobeying auditor charged with organised tax evasion lawful orders of the police. One of the who died in pre-trial detention in November protestors, Aleksey Navalnyy, alleged in 2009. He was later convicted particular that a police officer had applied posthumously. excessive physical force during his arrest. Violation of the substantive and procedural N.T. v. Russia (no. 14727/11) limbs of Article 2 (right to life) 02.06.2020 Violation of Article 3 owing to the conditions The case concerned the applicant’s of Mr Magnitskiy’s detention complaint about routine handcuffing and Violation of Article 3 owing to various aspects of his strict imprisonment Mr Magnitskiy’s ill-treatment by prison

- 9 -

Press country profile - Russia

guards and the lack of an effective Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia investigation into that issue 17.07.2018 Violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty The case concerned the conviction and and security) owing to the length of his imprisonment of three members of the detention Pussy Riot punk band for attempting to Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a perform one of their protest songs in a fair trial and presumption of innocence) Moscow cathedral in 2012. The courts ruled owing to the posthumous proceedings and in particular that their performance had his conviction been offensive and banned access to video The Court also rejected a complaint under recordings they had subsequently Article 5 § 1 about Mr Magnitskiy’s arrest downloaded onto the Internet because they and detention as ill-founded. were “extremist”. The Court found in particular that the medical care given to Mr Magnitskiy in Karachentsev v. Russia prison had been inadequate and had led to 17.04.2018 his death and that the subsequent The case concerned the applicant’s investigation had been lacking. He had also complaint of remand prison overcrowding, been held in over-crowded conditions and about being held in a metal cage during had been ill-treated shortly before dying. videolink appeals and of procedural flaws in Furthermore, the Court found that the his detention proceedings. proceedings for his conviction after his The Court also accepted a Government death had been inherently unfair. declaration and offer of compensation to resolve a complaint on conditions of Volodina v. Russia detention raised under Article 3 and 09.07.2019 complaints made under Article 5 § 3 The case concerned the applicant’s (entitlement to trial within a reasonable complaint that the Russian authorities had time or to release pending trial) and Article failed to protect her from repeated 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security / right to domestic violence, including assaults, have lawfulness of detention decided kidnapping, stalking and threats. She also speedily by a court), and struck those alleged that the current legal regime in complaints out of its list. Russia was inadequate for dealing with such violence and discriminatory against Olisov and Others v. Russia women. 02.05.2017 Press release in Russian. The applicants in this case relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture) to complain that Tomov and Others v. Russia they had been subjected to violence from 09.04.2019 police officers with the aim of obtaining The case concerned complaints brought by confessions and that the authorities had seven Russian nationals about the refused to investigate their allegations. conditions of their transfer between remand Their complaints included claims that they prisons and correctional facilities. had been punched and kicked, beaten with Utvenko and Borisov v. Russia a truncheon, suffocated, tied up in torturous positions, lifted and dropped. 05.02.2019 See press release in Russian. The case mainly concerned the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in prison and Orlov and Others v. Russia about the fairness of the criminal 14.03.2017 proceedings brought against them. The case concerned the abduction and Ilgiz Khalikov v. Russia ill-treatment of a human rights activist and three journalists, in Ingushetia (Russia), 15.01.2019 during November 2007. The case concerned a prisoner’s complaint that he had been seriously wounded by a V.K. v. Russia (no. 68059/13) stray bullet during a shoot-out between 07.03.2017 escorting officers and detainees attempting Mistreatment of a four year old boy by to escape during their transfer to another teachers at his public nursery school which facility.

- 10 -

Press country profile - Russia

resulted in him developing a neurological the European Court had requested an disorder. independent medical examination of Mr Kondrulin Shioshvili and Others v. Russia 20.12.2016 A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia (no. 44095/14) The case concerned the expulsion from 29.10.2015 Russian territory of a heavily pregnant The case concerned, in particular, the Georgian woman, accompanied by her four complaint by a man residing in Russia and young children, in the autumn of 2006. The wanted as a criminal suspect in China that applicants complained that they had been if forcibly returned to China, he would be at collectively expelled from Russia, but then risk of being convicted and sentenced to prevented from leaving the country for death. almost two weeks whilst being exposed to L.M. and Others v. Russia very poor conditions by the Russian (nos. 40081/14, 40088/14 and authorities. Though the family did 40127/14) eventually reach Georgia, after arriving the pregnant mother gave birth to a still-born 15.10.2015 baby. Concerned the impending expulsion of three men to Syria from Russia and their Kolomenskiy v. Russia detention pending expulsion in Russia. 13.12.2016 This was the first time that the Court The case concerned the placement in pre- addressed in a judgment the issue of trial detention and the conditions of returns to Syria in the current situation. detention of a lawyer who had been Having regard to its finding that the appointed as the administrator of a applicants’ detention, since the last decision company in judicial reorganisation by the Russian courts confirming their proceedings. expulsion order in May 2014, had been in breach of Article 5, the Court held, in Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia application of Article 46 (binding force and 04.10.2016 execution of judgments), that Russia was to The case concerned the criminal ensure the immediate release of two of the proceedings brought against a protestor applicants who had so far remained in who had attended the Bolotnaya Sqaure detention. rally of 6 May 2012. Mr Belousov had been tried and convicted for his role in the Turbylev v. Russia protest, which had involved chanting 06.10.2015 slogans and throwing a small object Mr Turbylev’s complaint of having been towards the police. He had been sentenced ill-treated in police custody and of the to two years and three months’ unfairness of the criminal trial against him, imprisonment. in which his statement of “surrender and Violations of Articles 3, 5 (right to liberty), confession”, made as a result of his 6 (right to a fair trial) and 11 (freedom of ill-treatment and in the absence of a assembly) lawyer, was used as evidence. See also Russian version of press release Kondrulin v. Russia 20.09.2016 Lyalyakin v. Russia The case concerned a complaint brought by 12.03.2015 a prisoner about his inadequate medical The case concerned a complaint by a care in detention; he then died from cancer conscript about degrading treatment when while serving his sentence, leaving no he was caught trying to escape from the known relatives, and the European Court army, including appearing undressed in had to consider the question of whether the front of other soldiers. NGO whose lawyers represented him in the Razzakov v. Russia domestic proceedings had legal standing to continue his case. 05.02.2015 Violation of Article 34 (right of individual The case concerned the complaint of a man petition) on account of the State’s failure to suspected of having committed an offence comply with an interim measure in which

- 11 -

Press country profile - Russia

that he was tortured in police custody to Lopata v. Russia make him confess to a murder. 13.07.2010 The Court found that Mr Razzakov’s State intimidated applicant who complained ill-treatment by the police had amounted to about police brutality to the European Court torture. Given that the authorities had of Human Rights failed to conduct an effective investigation into his ill-treatment and to prosecute those Slyusarev v. Russia responsible, Mr Razzakov could still claim to 20.04.2010 be a victim of a violation of Article 3, even Making a detainee wait for five months though he had been awarded before returning his damaged glasses to compensation. him and another two months for his new glasses amounted to degrading treatment Mamazhonov v. Russia 23.10.2014 Klein v Russia The case concerned an Uzbek national’s 01.04.2010 allegation that he would be ill-treated if he Applicant, criminally convicted in Colombia, were extradited to Uzbekistan, as well as arrested in Russia upon an Interpol notice. his disappearance and alleged abduction Aleksanyan v. Russia pending the examination of his case before 22.12.2008 the European Court of Human Rights. Court ordered discontinuing of applicant’s See press release in Russian. pre-trial detention due to his grave illness. Lyapin v. Russia Garabayev v. Russia 24.07.2014 07.06.2007 The case mainly concerned the practice of Insufficient guarantees against arbitrariness refusals to open criminal cases into credible and no judicial review of detention pending allegations of torture and inhuman extradition. treatment at the hands of the police. Mikheyev v. Russia Kim v. Russia 26.01.2006 17.07.2014 Torture in police detention The case concerned the detention of a stateless person, whom the authorities Kalashnikov v. Russia initially took to be a national of Uzbekistan, 15.07.2002 with a view to his expulsion. Inhuman conditions in pre-trial detention due to overcrowding and poor hygienic and Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia medical facilities. 25.04.2013 Abduction and secret transfer of a man, whose extradition had been sought by the Inadmissible application Tajik authorities and who had been granted Shmelev and Others v. Russia temporary asylum in Russia, to his home country, Tajikistan, where he was 09.04.2020 The case concerned a new law introduced in subsequently prosecuted and sentenced to Russia at the end of 2019 in response to imprisonment for offences against national the European Court of Human Right’s security. leading judgments on improper conditions See also Russian version of press release of detention. The law allows prisoners to Iskandarov v. Russia claim compensation for inadequate 23.09.2010 conditions of detention. Ex-leader of the Tajik political opposition The European Court declared inadmissible unlawfully removed from Russia to six of the case’s 17 applications, concerning Tajikistan. those applicants whose pre-trial or correctional detention was already over. Kopylov v. Russia The Court also decided to adjourn the 29.07.2010 examination of the remaining Severe torture in police custody and failure 11 applications and asked the parties to to investigate it effectively submit additional observations to clarify the

- 12 -

Press country profile - Russia

effectiveness of the compensatory remedies known in Russia as “the first trial of for other types of past correctional Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev”. detention; and of other types of remedies No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of to improve situations of those in continued inhuman and degrading treatment) as detention. concerned Mr Lebedev’s conditions of detention on remand but a violation of Article 3 with regard to the humiliation of Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia his being placed in a metal cage during (no. 2) court hearings on his case; 14.01.2020 Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to The case concerned the second trial of liberty and security) concerning the length former Yukos executives Mikhail of Mr Lebedev’s detention on remand and Khodorkovskiy and Platon Lebedev. the delayed examination of a detention Violations of the applicants’ right to a fair order of December 2004 but no violation as trial under Article 6 § 1 and Article 6 § 3 (c) concerned the other complaints under and (d) of the Convention because of the Article 5; trial judge’s refusals to allow the defence to No violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to fair examine prosecution and defence witnesses trial) with regard to the impartiality of the and to submit important expert or judge who presided at the applicants’ trial exculpatory evidence or with regard to the time and facilities No violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the given for the preparation of their defence independence and impartiality of the trial but a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) judge and (d) as concerned breaches of the No violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of lawyer-client confidentiality and the unfair innocence) with regards to comments taking and examination of evidence by the during the trial made by Vladimir Putin, trial court; prime minister at the time No violation of Article 7 (no punishment The Court held that the applicants had without law) regarding the application of suffered an unforeseeable application of the the tax law to convict the applicants, which criminal law to their detriment, in breach of the Court considered reasonable and Article 7 (no punishment without law). It corresponded to a common-sense unanimously held that there had been a understanding of tax evasion; violation of Article 8 (right to private and Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life) because of a lack of long-term private and family life) on account of family visits when the applicants were on Mr Khodorkovskiy’s and Mr Lebedev’s remand before the trial. transfer to penal colonies in Siberia and the The Court also held that there was no need Far North, several thousand kilometres to examine the applicants’ complaints away from Moscow and their families; under Article 18 (limitation on use of Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 restrictions on rights) in conjunction with (protection of property) on account of the Articles 6 and 7 and Article 4 of Protocol arbitrary way in which Mr Khodorkovskiy No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished had been ordered to reimburse tax arrears twice), and, no violation of Article 18 in owed by Yukos to the State following his conjunction with Article 8. conviction; Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia No violation of Article 18 (limitation on use 25.07.2013 of restrictions on rights) as concerned the Concerned criminal proceedings which complaint that Mr Khodorkovskiy’s and Mr ended in a judgment of September 2005 by Lebedev’s prosecution had been politically the Moscow City Court in which motivated; and, Mr Khodorkovskiy and Mr Lebedev, two Violation of Article 34 (right of individual former top-managers and major petition) on account of the authorities’ shareholders of a large industrial group, harassment of Mr Khodorkovskiy’s lawyers. were found guilty of large-scale tax evasion Russian version press release. and fraud. The domestic proceedings at the heart of the present case are commonly

- 13 -

Press country profile - Russia

Khodorkovskiy v. Russia a court) concerning delays in the review of 31.05.2011 the detention order of 26 December 2003; The case concerned the arrest and Violation of Article 5 § 4 concerning delays detention for several years of one of the in the review of the detention order of 6 then richest people in Russia on charges of April 2004 economic crimes. Violation of Article 5 § 4 concerning No violation of Article 3 (interdictions des Mr Lebedev’s absence from the detention traitements inhumains ou dégradants) as hearing on 8 June 2004 regards the conditions of Mikhail No failure to comply with Article 34 (right of Khodorkovskiy’s detention in the remand individual petition) prison between 25 October 2003 and 8 August 2005; OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya YUKOS v. Two violations of Article 3 as regards the Russia conditions in which he was kept in court 20.09.2011 and in the remand prison after 8 August The case concerned the tax and 2005; enforcement proceedings brought against Violation of Article 5 § 1 (b) (lawfulness of the Russian oil company, OAO Neftyanaya detention for non-compliance with a lawful Kompaniya YUKOS, (YUKOS), which led to order) as regards his apprehension on 25 its liquidation. October 2003; In its judgment, the Court held: No violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (lawfulness By six votes to one, that the case was of detention of a criminal suspect) as admissible; regards the lawfulness of his detention By six votes to one, that there had been a pending investigation; violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to Violation of Article 5 § 3 (length of a fair trial) concerning the 2000 tax detention) as regards the length of his assessment proceedings against YUKOS, continuous detention pending investigation because it had insufficient time to prepare and trial; its case before the lower courts; Four violations of Article 5 § 4 (judicial By four votes to three, that there had been review of the lawfulness of pre-conviction a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 detention) as regards procedural flaws (protection of property) to the Convention, related to his detention; and concerning the 2000-2001 tax No violation of Article 18 (limitation of assessments, regarding the imposition and rights for improper purposes) as regards calculation of penalties; the claim that his prosecution was Unanimously, that there had been no politically motivated. violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Russian version press release concerning the rest of the 2000-2003 tax Lebedev v. Russia assessments; 25.10.2007 Unanimously, that there had been no The case concerned the arrest and violation of Article 14 (prohibition of detention on remand of Mr. Lebedev, discrimination), in conjunction with Article 1 former senior manager of OAO Neftyanaya of Protocol No. 1 concerning whether Kompaniya YUKOS, on charges of economic YUKOS had been treated differently from crimes and the fact that, between 22 March other companies; and 12 April 2003, the prison authorities By five votes to two, that there had been a had not allowed his lawyer to meet him. violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) concerning Mr that the enforcement proceedings were Lebedev’s unauthorised detention between disproportionate; 31 March and 6 April 2004 Unanimously, that there had been no Violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to be violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of brought promptly before a judge) restriction on rights), in conjunction with concerning the absence of Mr Lebedev’s Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning lawyers at a hearing on 3 July 2003 whether the Russian authorities had Violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have misused the legal proceedings to destroy lawfulness of detention decided speedily by YUKOS and seize its assets; and, Unanimously, that the question of the

- 14 -

Press country profile - Russia

application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine was not ready for decision. and Udaltsov v. Russia In its Chamber judgment adopted on 24 19.11.2019 June 2014, the Court ruled on the question of the application of Article 41 (just Korneyeva v. Russia satisfaction) of the Convention. 08.10.2019 The Court held, by a majority: The case concerned the applicant being -that Russia was to pay the shareholders of convicted of two separate offences Yukos as they had stood at the time of the originating in the similar circumstances of company’s liquidation and, if applicable, an unauthorised rally. their legal successors and heirs Mityanin and Leonov v. Russia 1,866,104,634 euros (EUR) in respect of 07.05.2019 pecuniary damage; and, The case concerns the applicants’ detention - that Russia had to produce, in and trial on various criminal charges and co-operation with the Council of Europe’s the first applicant’s complaint about a Committee of Ministers, within six months newspaper article on his case. from the date on which the judgment became final, a comprehensive plan for Navalnyy v. Russia (No. 2) distribution of the award of just 09.04.2019 satisfaction. The case concerned Mr Navalnyy being held The Court further decided, by a majority, under house arrest during a criminal that Russia was to pay EUR 300,000 in investigation against him and the restrictive respect of costs and expenses to the Yukos measures imposed on him during that time. International Foundation. Utvenko and Borisov v. Russia The Court also held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself 05.02.2019 sufficient just satisfaction for the The case mainly concerned the applicant’s non-pecuniary damage sustained by Yukos. allegations of ill-treatment in prison and about the fairness of the criminal Right to liberty and security proceedings brought against them. (Article 5) Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia

Violation of Article 5 17.07.2018 The case concerned the conviction and Berkman v. Russia imprisonment of three members of the 01.12.2020 Pussy Riot punk band for attempting to The case concerned a public LGBTI (lesbian, perform one of their protest songs in a gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) Moscow cathedral in 2012. The courts ruled meeting in St Petersburg and the in particular that their performance had authorities’ failure to protect participants been offensive and banned access to video from aggressive counter-demonstrators. recordings they had subsequently downloaded onto the Internet because they Navalnyy and Gunko v. Russia were “extremist”. 10.11.2020 The case concerned two protesters’ arrest Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov v. Russia at Bolotnaya Square in May 2012 during a 10.07.2018 political rally followed by their overnight The case concerned the applicants’ detention at a police station and their complaint about the negligible amount of administrative conviction for disobeying compensation they had been awarded for lawful orders of the police. One of the wrongful imprisonment. protestors, Aleksey Navalnyy, alleged in Tarkhanov v. Russia particular that a police officer had applied excessive physical force during his arrest. 15.05.2018 The case concerned the absence of compensation for certain types of unlawful detention.

- 15 -

Press country profile - Russia

Rubtsov and Balayan v. Russia proceedings examining the lawfulness of his 10.04.2018 detention order. The case concerned a rule in Russian law Taranenko v. Russia excluding pre-trial detention for those 15.05.2014 accused of certain business-related The case concerned the detention and offences. conviction of a participant in a protest X v. Russia (no. 3150/15) against the politics of President Putin in 20.02.2018 2004, organised by the National Bolsheviks The case concerned the applicant’s Party. compulsory confinement in a psychiatric Petukhova v. Russia facility. 02.05.2013 Butkevich v. Russia The applicant complained in particular that 13.02.2018 she had been unlawfully held in police The case concerned a journalist’s arrest custody before being transferred to hospital during an “anti-globalisation” protest on 16 for an involuntary psychiatric examination. July 2006 in St Petersburg. Vlassov v. Russia Kolomenskiy v. Russia 12.06.2008 13.12.2016 The case concerned excessive length of The case concerned the placement in pre- detention pending trial. trial detention and the conditions of detention of a lawyer who had been appointed as the administrator of a No-violation of Article 5 company in judicial reorganisation Karachentsev v. Russia proceedings. 17.04.2018 Kasparov v. Russia The case concerned the applicant’s 11.10.2016 complaint of remand prison overcrowding, The case concerned the Russian authorities’ about being held in a metal cage during detention of Mr Kasparov at Sheremetyevo videolink appeals and of procedural flaws in Airport in Moscow in May 2007, which had his detention proceedings. prevented him from attending an opposition The Court also accepted a Government political demonstration scheduled to be held declaration and offer of compensation to at an EU-Russia summit in Samara. resolve a complaint on conditions of detention raised under Article 3 and Oleynik v. Russia complaints made under Article 5 § 3 21.06.2016 (entitlement to trial within a reasonable The case related to the allegations of time or to release pending trial) and Article ill-treatment made by Mr Oleynik, a police 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security / right to officer suspected of soliciting a bribe, the have lawfulness of detention decided lack of an effective investigation in that speedily by a court), and struck those regard, the recording of his conversations complaints out of its list. and his unacknowledged detention on the premises of the Federal Security Bureau. Cases concerning Article 6 Zherebin v. Russia 24.03.2016 Right to a fair trial The case concerned the pre-trial detention of a criminal suspect. Violation of Article 6 Shcherbina v. Russia Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia 26.06.2014 17.07.2018 The case concerned the detention pending The case concerned the conviction and extradition from Russia to Kazakhstan of a imprisonment of three members of the man wanted by the Kazakh authorities, and Pussy Riot punk band for attempting to in particular the duration of the review perform one of their protest songs in a Moscow cathedral in 2012. The courts ruled

- 16 -

Press country profile - Russia

in particular that their performance had experienced serious psychological been offensive and banned access to video problems. recordings they had subsequently Kasparov and Others v. Russia downloaded onto the Internet because they were “extremist”. 03.10.2013 The case concerned the arrest of a group of Navalnyye v. Russia people ahead of an anti-government 17.10.2017 demonstration in April 2007, which had The case concerned the complaint by been authorised in a limited area, and their Aleksey Navalnyy, an opposition leader, ensuing conviction of having breached the and his brother Oleg Navalnyy, an regulations on demonstrations. entrepreneur, that their criminal conviction Kravchenko and 23 Other “military for fraud and money laundering was based accommodation” cases v. Russia on an unforeseeable application of criminal law and that the proceedings were arbitrary 16.09.2010 and unfair. Delayed enforcement of final judgments ordering the allocation of subsidised Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia accommodation to end-of-carrier military 23.02.2016 officers The case concerned the complaint by an Shtukaturov v. Russia opposition activist and a businessman that the criminal proceedings leading to their 27.03.2008 conviction for embezzlement had been The applicant, mentally ill and declared arbitrary and unfair, and based on an officially disabled since 2003, was deprived unforeseeable application of criminal law. of his legal capacity without his knowledge Press release in Russian. and confined to a psychiatric hospital upon See also Navalnyy v. Russia (judgment of request of his mother. 15 May 2018) Vanyan v. Russia See also Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia 15.12.2005 (judgment of 4 December 2014) Right to fair trial breached as a result of Karelin v. Russia police provocation having served as the 20.09.2016 only basis for conviction for drug dealing. The applicant complained that the absence of a prosecuting party in proceedings No violation of Article 6 against him for an administrative offence Atamanchuk v. Russia meant that they had been conducted in a 11.02.2020 way that was neither fair nor impartial. The case concerned a businessman’s Gankin and Others v. Russia conviction for inciting hatred and enmity 31.05.2016 following statements about non-Russians in The case concerned the complaints brought an article published in a local newspaper. by four Russian nationals – the applicants – that they had not been notified of appeal Right to a trial by an impartial tribunal hearings in civil proceedings to which they had been parties. Violation of Article 6 Lagutin and Others v. Russia Tikhonov and Khasis v. Russia 24.04.2014 16.02.2021 The case concerned allegations by five In this case the applicants alleged that the people convicted of drug dealing that they court which had found them guilty of the had been victims of police entrapment. murders of a lawyer and a journalist (killed in Moscow in 2009) had not been impartial. Matytsina v. Russia They based their allegations, among other 27.03.2014 things, on statements made by members of The case concerned a yoga instructor’s the jury in the media during and after the conviction of “illegal medical practice” after trial court proceedings. a participant in one of her courses in traditional Indian spiritual practices

- 17 -

Press country profile - Russia

Korneyeva v. Russia Right to legal assistance 08.10.2019 The case concerned the applicant being Violation of Article 6 convicted of two separate offences Timofeyev and Postupkin v. Russia originating in the similar circumstances of 19.01.2021 an unauthorised rally. The case concerned the administrative

surveillance of Mr Timofeyev and Mr Right of access to court Postupkin after they had served their prison

sentences. Violation of Article 6 Mikhaylova v. Russia Cherednichenko and Others v. Russia 19.11.2015 07.11.2017 The case concerned administrative offence The case concerned the starting point of proceedings under Russian law and the the period allowed for lodging an appeal in right to free legal assistance in such civil proceedings, which was interpreted in proceedings. Ms Mikhaylova complained different ways at national level: it was that she had not, and could not, benefit either the date on which a short form of the from free legal assistance as Russian law decision was read out at the hearing, or the excluded this possibility in administrative date on which the full text of the decision offence cases. was finalised by the judge, or the date on which the finalised decision was filed with Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia the court’s registry, or the date on which a 26.03.2015 copy of the decision was received through Allegations by two men providing computer the post. repair services that they had been incited Ivanova and Ivashova v. Russia by the police to commit a crime. Right to obtain attendance and examination 26.01.2017 of witnesses These two cases concerned the right of access to a court. Violation of Article 6 No violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of Ms Ivanova Danilov v. Russia Violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of 01.12.2020 Ms Ivashova The case concerned a physicist who had Ryabykh v. Russia been found guilty of treason for giving away State secrets. The applicant 24.07.2003 complained that the jury’s bias and that Breach of the legal certainty requirement in restrictions on his examining witnesses had civil proceedings before courts of general denied him a fair trial. jurisdiction as a result of supervisory review (nadzor). Zadumov v. Russia 12.12.2017 Right to a fair trial within a reasonable time The applicant, Roman Zadumov, complained that he had been found guilty Violation of Article 6 of manslaughter after a decisive witness Kormacheva v. Russia statement was read out in court but the witness herself did not appear at the trial. 29.01.2004

Excessive length of court proceedings and Presumption of innocence no remedy available in Russian law to challenge that. Violation of Article 6 § 2

Stirmanov v. Russia 29.01.2019 The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached in a decision to

- 18 -

Press country profile - Russia

discontinue criminal proceedings because Gorlov and Others v. Russia the offence was statute-barred. 02.07.2019 The case concerned the permanent video Private and family life surveillance of detainees in their cells by (Article 8) closed-circuit television cameras. Chaldayev v. Russia Violation of Article 8 28.05.2019 Fedotova and Others v. Russia The case concerned various restrictions on 13.07.2021 family visits to the applicant during his pre- The case concerned the refusal to register trial detention. the notice of marriage of the applicants, Alpeyeva and Dzhalagoniya v. Russia who are same-sex couples 12.06.2018 Usmanov v. Russia The case concerned complaints brought by 22.12.2020 two Russian nationals, former Soviet The case concerned a national of Tajikstan’s citizens from Kyrgyzstan and Georgia, complaint about decisions to revoke his whose passports had been invalidated on Russian citizenship and remove him from the grounds of administrative irregularities. Russian territory. Mr Usmanov was granted Ivashchenko v. Russia Russian citizenship in 2008, but it was 13.02.2018 revoked ten years later when the The case concerned the copying of the data authorities discovered that he had omitted from a photojournalist’s laptop by Russian the names of his brothers and sisters in his customs officials. application. The decision to expel him had been taken after he refused to leave the Yevgeniy Zakharov v. Russia country. 14.03.2017 This is the first case against Russia X and Others v. Russia (nos. 78042/16 concerning an eviction from State-owned and 66158/14) housing. Mr Zakharov complained about his 14.01.2020 eviction from local authority housing after The case concerned two applications the death of his partner. relating to allegations of malfunctioning of the justice system. Bagdonavicius and Others v. Russia Three applicants complained, in particular, 11.10.2016 about the disclosure of their identities in The case concerned the demolition of judicial decisions or documents that were houses and the forced eviction of the made public in a rape case (application no. applicants, who are of Roma origin and 66158/14) and in a case concerning were resident in the village of Dorozhnoye. adoption (application no. 78042/16). The Konovalova v. Russia civil actions brought by the applicants against the judges concerned were not 09.10.2014 The case concerned Ms Konovalova’s examined on the merits by the domestic complaint that medical students had been courts. allowed to observe her giving birth, without Violation of Article 8 on account of the her explicit consent. publication of the judgment of the Regional Court disclosing information concerning the Avilkina and Others v. Russia adoption of the children of applicants X and 06.06.2013 Y (application no. 78042/16) on that court’s Alleged harassment of Jehovah’s Witnesses. website The applicants notably complained about Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective disclosure of their medical files to the remedy), read in conjunction with Article 8, Russian prosecution authorities following in respect of those applicants their refusal to have blood transfusions The Court also declared the complaint during their stay in public hospitals. under the civil limb of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a tribunal) of the European Convention.

- 19 -

Press country profile - Russia

Fadeyeva v. Russia Cases dealing with parental rights 09.06.2005 (Article 8) Severe environmental pollution and the A.M. and Others v. Russia right of the applicant to be relocated from 06.07.2021 the area upon a court order. The case concerned a court decision to end Klyakhin v. Russia A.M.’s contact rights with her children 30.11.2004 because she had been undergoing gender Applicant’s correspondence with the Court transition at that time. routinely opened and censored by prison Violation of Article 8 authorities. Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction No-violation of Article 8 Article 8 Abdyusheva and Others v. Russia Uzbyakov v. Russia 26.11.2019 05.05.2020 The case concerned the three applicants’ The case concerned the applicant’s requests to be prescribed replacement complaint about his daughter being adopted therapy for their opioid use. by another family and the refusal by the The Court declared, by a majority, that the courts to overturn that decision. application lodged by Ms Abdyusheva was Violation of Article 8 admissible as regards the complaint under Y.I. v. Russia (no. 68868/14) Article 8 and inadmissible for the remainder 25.02.2020 and that the complaints submitted by The case concerned the applicant’s Mr Kurmanayevskiy and Mr Anoshkin were complaint about being deprived of her inadmissible. parental authority in respect of her three

children because she was a drug addict. Inadmissibility decision Drug addiction is a ground for removing parental authority under the Russian Family Dzhugashvili v. Russia Code, and entailed her losing all contact 09.12.2014 rights. The case concerned articles published by Violation of Article 8 the Novaya Gazeta newspaper about the shooting of Polish prisoners of war in Katyń Zelikha Magomadova v. Russia in 1940 and the role which the former 08.10.2019 Soviet leaders had allegedly played in the The case concerned a widow being denied tragedy. The applicant, the grandson of the access to her six children by her in-laws in former Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, sued defiance of court orders and the authorities’ the newspaper for defamation of his decision to withdraw her parental authority. grandfather, without success. Violation of Article 8 Application declared inadmissible as V.D. and Others v. Russia manifestly ill-founded. (no. 72931/10

09.04.2019 Practice in Russia of incarcerating The case concerned a child, R., who was prisoners thousands of kilometres cared for by a foster mother, the first from their family applicant in the case, for nine years and (Article 8) was then returned to his biological parents. Tomov and Others v. Russia No violation of Article 8 owing to an order by the domestic courts to remove a child 09.04.2019 from his foster mother and return him to Voynov v. Russia his biological parents 03.07.2018 Violation of Article 8 because of the decision Violation of Article 8 to deny the foster family any subsequent contact with the child Polyakova and Others v. Russia 07.03.2017 Violation of Article 8

- 20 -

Press country profile - Russia

Bogonosovy v. Russia image in this publication had harmed their 05.03.2019 honour, dignity and reputation. The case concerned a grandfather who Violation of Article 8 wanted to maintain ties with his Nazarenko v. Russia granddaughter after her adoption by 16.07.2015 another family. The case concerned Mr Nazarenko’s Violation of Article 8 exclusion from his daughter’s life when, it Khusnutdinov and X v. Russia having been revealed that he was not the 18.12.2018 biological father, his paternity was The case concerned a child residence terminated. dispute. Violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 8 V.P. v. Russia (no. 61362/12) The Court further rejected the applicant’s 23.10.2014 complaint under Article 13 (right to an Enforcement of Mr V.P.’s parental rights effective remedy) as manifestly ill-founded. and return of his 6-year-old son, who had Lozovyye v. Russia been abducted from Moldova to Russia by 24.04.2018 the boy’s mother. The case concerned a Russian couple’s Violation of Article 8 complaint that the authorities had failed to Ageyevy v. Russia inform them that their son had been 18.04.2013 murdered. The case concerned a married couple’s Violation of Article 8 complaint about the removal of their two Leonov v. Russia adopted children and the revocation of the Magomadova v. Russia adoption following an incident when their 10.04.2018 son was burnt at home and had to go to These cases concerned the applicants’ legal hospital for treatment. efforts to have their children live with them. Five violations of Article 8 Case Leonov v Russia: No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for Freedom of thought, conscience and private and family life) religion (Article 9) No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 Perovy v. Russia The Court rejected a complaint under 20.10.2020 Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention The case concerned the Russian Orthodox (equality between spouses) as manifestly rite of blessing in a classroom. The ill-founded. applicants in the case are a married couple Case Magomadova v. Russia: (the first and second applicants) and their Violation of Article 8 son (the third applicant) who are not The Court rejected a complaint under members of the Russian Orthodox Church. Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of They all alleged that the son had been the Convention. forced to participate in the rite when starting his new school year at the age of Bogomolova v. Russia seven, while the parents, who had not been 20.06.2017 informed about the ceremony, complained The case concerned the use of a minor’s that their right to ensure their son’s image without parental authorisation. The education in conformity with their own child’s photo was featured on the cover of a religious convictions had not been regional booklet meant to inform the public respected. about the local authorities’ efforts to No violation of the first two applicants’ protect orphans and the assistance rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 available for families looking to adopt. On No violation of the third applicant’s rights behalf of herself as well as her son, under Article 9 (freedom of religion) Ms Bogomolova – the applicant – argued that the unauthorized use of her son’s

- 21 -

Press country profile - Russia

Dyagilev v. Russia Savenko (Limonov) v. Russia 10.03.2020 26.11.2019 The case concerned the procedure in Russia The case concerned defamation for examining requests to replace proceedings against the applicant instituted compulsory military service with its civilian by the former mayor of Moscow, Yuri alternative. The applicant in the case, a Luzhkov. recent graduate, complained that the Margulev v. Russia authorities had refused his request because they found that he was not a genuine 08.10.2019 pacifist. The case concerned the head of a No violation of Article 9 conservation NGO whose comments in a newspaper article were found to have Nolan and K. v. Russia defamed Moscow City Council. 12.02.2002 Pryanishnikov v. Russia Expulsion of a United States citizen who was a missionary for the Unification Church. 10.09.2019 Violation of Articles 9 and 1 of Protocol The case concerned the refusal to grant the No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to applicant a film reproduction licence. expulsion of aliens) Kablis v. Russia Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia Freedom of expression 30.04.2019 (Article 10) Both cases concerned restrictions on protests and other interferences with the Violation of Article 10 applicants’ rights. In each case: OOO Informatsionnoye Agentstvo Violation of Article 10, Article 11 (freedom Tambov-Inform v. Russia of assembly) and Article 13 (right to an 18.05.2021 effective remedy) The case concerned the publication of In Ms Dmitriyeva’s case: articles and an online poll on a website Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and during an election campaign. Convictions security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) followed, with the articles being classified, in particular, as “pre-election campaigning” Ibragim Ibragimov and Others v. in breach of the relevant Russian law. Russia 28.08.2018 Karastelev and Others v. Russia The case concerned anti-extremism 06.10.2020 legislation in Russia and a ban on The case concerned complaints brought by publishing and distributing Islamic books. the chief officer and deputy chief officer of The three applicants in the case, a Russian a human rights NGO about anti-extremist national, a publisher and a religious legislation in Russia. association, complained that the Russian Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia, OOO courts had ruled in 2007 and 2010 that Flavus and Others v. Russia, Bulgakov books by Said Nursi, a well-known Turkish v. Russia and Engels v. Russia Muslim theologian and commentator of the Qur’an, were extremist and banned their 23.06.2020 publication and distribution. The applicants The cases concerned different types of had either published some of Nursi’s books blocking measures, including “collateral” or had commissioned them for publication. blocking (where the IP address that was blocked was shared by several sites Savva Terentyev v. Russia including the targeted one); “excessive” 28.08.2018 blocking (where the whole website was The case concerned the applicant’s blocked because of a single page or file), conviction for inciting hatred after making and “wholesale” blocking (three online insulting remarks about police officers in a media were blocked by the Prosecutor comment under a blog post. General for their coverage of certain news).

- 22 -

Press country profile - Russia

Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia three activists had staged demonstrations 17.07.2018 between 2009 and 2012. They were The case concerned the conviction and subsequently found guilty of administrative imprisonment of three members of the offences and given fines. Pussy Riot punk band for attempting to Nadtoka v. Russia perform one of their protest songs in a 31.05.2016 Moscow cathedral in 2012. The courts ruled The case concerned the criminal conviction, in particular that their performance had for insult, of a journalist and the editor-in- been offensive and banned access to video chief of the newspaper in which the recordings they had subsequently offending article had been published. downloaded onto the Internet because they were “extremist”. Novikova and others v. Russia Stomakhin v. Russia 26.04.2016 The case concerned the complaints by five 09.05.2018 people, lodged separately, about the The case concerned Mr Stomakhin’s authorities’ response to demonstrations conviction and sentence to five years in jail held by each of them, notably their arrest for newsletter articles he had written on the and retention at a police station for several armed conflict in Chechnya, which the hours and, in respect of three of the domestic courts said had justified terrorism applicants, their conviction of an and violence and incited hatred. administrative offence. Butkevich v. Russia Kharlamov v. Russia 13.02.2018 08.10.2015 The case concerned a journalist’s arrest The case concerned a civil action in during an “anti-globalisation” protest on 16 defamation brought against Mr Kharlamov, July 2006 in St Petersburg. a university professor, by his employer, Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia Orel State Technical University, after he 03.10.2017 expressed the view that the University’s The case concerned the criminal conviction governing body could not be considered of the editor-in-chief of a regional legitimate due to shortcomings in the newspaper following the publication of election procedure. statements by two Chechen separatist Reznik v. Russia leaders. 04.04.2013 Novaya Gazeta and Milashina v. Russia The case concerned defamation 03.10.2017 proceedings against the president of the The case concerned defamation Moscow City Bar for critical statements on a proceedings against an editorial house and live TV show about the conduct of male a journalist following the publication of two prison warders who had searched the articles concerning the sinking of the female lawyer representing the prominent Russian Navy’s nuclear cruise missile businessman Mikhail Khodorkovskiy. submarine “Kursk” in the Barents Sea in Kudeshkina v. Russia August 2000 and the investigation into the 26.02.2009 accident. Disciplinary measures imposed on a judge Bayev and Others v. Russia for having publicly criticised the judicial 20.06.2017 system. The case concerned a complaint brought by Grinberg v. Russia three gay rights activists about legislation 21.07.2005 in Russia banning the promotion of Punitive proceedings brought by public homosexuality, also known as the “gay officials against journalists for value propaganda law”. In a series of legislative judgment statements. acts – most recently in 2013 – “promoting non-traditional sexual relationships” among minors was made an offence punishable by a fine. As a protest against these laws, the

- 23 -

Press country profile - Russia

No violation of Article 10 which the courts viewed as a static demonstration requiring previous Atamanchuk v. Russia notification. 11.02.2020 The case concerned a businessman’s Zhdanov and Others v. Russia conviction for inciting hatred and enmity 16.07.2019 following statements about non-Russians in The case concerned the authorities’ refusal an article published in a local newspaper. to register organisations set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian, gay, Pasko v Russia bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in 22.10.2009 Russia. Military journalist criminally convicted and The Court found in particular that the sentenced to imprisonment for treason. decisive ground for refusing to register the applicant organisations had been because Freedom of assembly and association they promoted LGBT rights. That ground (Article 11) could not be reasonably or objectively justified and had, moreover, amounted to Violation of Article 11 discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Berkman v. Russia 01.12.2020 Kablis v. Russia The case concerned a public LGBTI (lesbian, Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) 30.04.2019 meeting in St Petersburg and the Both cases concerned restrictions on authorities’ failure to protect participants protests and other interferences with the from aggressive counter-demonstrators. applicants’ rights. In each case: Navalnyy and Gunko v. Russia Violation of Article 10, Article 11 (freedom 10.11.2020 of assembly) and Article 13 (right to an The case concerned two protesters’ arrest effective remedy) at Bolotnaya Square in May 2012 during a In Ms Dmitriyeva’s case: political rally followed by their overnight Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and detention at a police station and their security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) administrative conviction for disobeying lawful orders of the police. One of the Alekseyev and Others v. Russia protestors, Aleksey Navalnyy, alleged in 27.11.2018 particular that a police officer had applied The case, which brought together 51 excessive physical force during his arrest. applications from seven applicants, concerned the continued refusal by Russian Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine authorities to approve organisers’ requests and Udaltsov v. Russia to hold LGBT rallies. 19.11.2019 The Court found that this case was The case concerned the conviction of two relevantly similar to the case of Alekseyev men for organising “mass disorder” for their v. Russia, on which it had adjudicated in part in May 2012 opposition protests and 2010, and that it ought to replicate its resultant disturbances in central Moscow, judgment in that case in the present an incident which has been at the centre of instance. several earlier cases dealt with by the European Court of Human Rights. Ognevenko v. Russia The Court rejected the complaint by the 20.11.2018 first applicant under this provision, finding The case concerned Mr Ognevenko’s that his actions did not fall within the notion dismissal as a train driver for disciplinary of “peaceful assembly”. breaches, including taking part in a strike. Violations of Articles 11 Obote v. Russia 19.11.2019 The case concerned the applicant’s prosecution for taking part in a flash mob,

- 24 -

Press country profile - Russia

Lashmankin and Others v. Russia participating in demonstrations and open 07.02.2017 political debate. 23 applicants from different parts of Russia Alekseyev v Russia alleged that local authorities had imposed 21.10.2010 severe restrictions on peaceful assemblies The case concerned repeated unjustified planned by them, without any proper ban on gay-pride marches in Moscow. justification. Violations of Articles 11, 13 (right to an Church of Scientology Moscow v. effective remedy) in conjunction with 11, 5 Russia (right to liberty) and 6 (right to a fair trial) 05.04.2007 See press release in Russian. Authorities’ refusal to register a religious Kasparov and Others v. Russia (No. 2) organisation. 13.12.2016 Presidential Party of Mordovia v. The case concerned the arrest of Garri Russia Kasparov, the former World Chess 05.10.2004 Champion and political activist, along with Authorities’ refusal to renew the another activist, Aleksandr Averin, at a registration of a political party. protest rally in Moscow and the two men’s ensuing detention. Cases on discrimination Frumkin v. Russia (Article 14) 05.01.2016 Gruba and Others v. Russia The case concerned a political rally at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 06.07.2021 2012, held to protest against “abuses and The case concerned the difference in falsifications” in the elections to the State entitlement to parental leave between Duma and the presidential elections. policemen and policewomen. Press release in Russian. Violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia and family life) 04.12.2014 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair The case concerned the arrest of two hearing) in respect of application well-known opposition leaders at a no. 22165/12 (Mr Morozov) demonstration in December 2011, their Zhdanov and Others v. Russia subsequent detention and their conviction of an administrative offence. 16.07.2019 The Court further found that the applicants’ Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with punishment – for acts protected by Articles Article 11 (freedom of assembly and 10 and 11 of the Convention – had the association) in all applications potential to deter others from attending Chaldayev v. Russia demonstrations or participating in open 28.05.2019 political debate. The case concerned various restrictions on See press release in Russian. family visits to the applicant during his pre- Nemtsov v. Russia trial detention. 31.07.2014 Violation of Article 14 read in conjunction The case concerned the arrest and with Article 8 detention of Boris Nemtsov, a well-known Violation of Article 8 opposition leader, following his participation Alekseyev and Others v. Russia in a political demonstration, and his 27.11.2018 subsequent conviction for an administrative The case, which brought together 51 offence. applications from seven applicants, The Court found in particular that the concerned the continued refusal by Russian interference with Mr Nemtsov’s right to authorities to approve organisers’ requests freedom of assembly had been arbitrary to hold LGBT rallies. and that the proceedings against him had The Court found that this case was the serious potential to deter others from relevantly similar to the case of Alekseyev

- 25 -

Press country profile - Russia

v. Russia, on which it had adjudicated in Kiyutin v. Russia 2010, and that it ought to replicate its 10.03.2011 judgment in that case in the present Refusal of a residence permit to a foreigner instance. because he was HIV-positive. Ibrogimov v. Russia Violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to private and family 15.05.2018 life) The case concerned the expulsion of a HIV- positive non-national. Violation of Article 14 of the Convention, Right to individual application read together with Article 8 (right to (Article 34) respect for private and family life) Abdyusheva and Others v. Russia Bayev and Others v. Russia 26.11.2019 20.06.2017 The case concerned the three applicants’ The case concerned a complaint brought by requests to be prescribed replacement three gay rights activists about legislation therapy for their opioid use. in Russia banning the promotion of No violation of Article 34 homosexuality, also known as the “gay No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for propaganda law”. In a series of legislative private life) acts – most recently in 2013 – “promoting The Court declared, by a majority, that the non-traditional sexual relationships” among application lodged by Ms Abdyusheva was minors was made an offence punishable by admissible as regards the complaint under a fine. As a protest against these laws, the Article 8 and inadmissible for the remainder three activists had staged demonstrations and that the complaints submitted by between 2009 and 2012. They were Mr Kurmanayevskiy and Mr Anoshkin were subsequently found guilty of administrative inadmissible. offences and given fines. Violation of Article 10 (freedom of Protection of property expression) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 10 Gavrilova and Others v. Russia A.H. and Others v. Russia (nos. 6033/13, 16.03.2021 8927/13, 10549/13, 12275/13, 23890/13, The case concerned the judicial annulment 26309/13, 27161/13, 29197/13, 32224/13, of the applicants’ title deeds to plots of land 32331/13, 32351/13, 32368/13, 37173/13, which they had purchased under a series of 38490/13, 42340/13 and 42403/13) transactions, and the return of those plots to State ownership on the grounds that 17.01.2017 they were “forestry resources”. The case concerns the ban on the adoption Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of Russian children by nationals of the United States of America. The applications Seregin and Others v. Russia were brought by 45 US nationals: both on 16.03.2021 their own behalf, and on behalf of The case concerned the annulment by the 27 children who are Russian nationals. courts of the applicants’ property deeds in Violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction favour of municipal authorities on the with Article 8 (right to respect for private grounds that the initial property transfers – life) in the form of privatisations – had been Novruk and Others v. Russia unlawful. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 15.03.2016 The case concerned the entry and residence Semenov v. Russia rights of HIV-positive non-Russian 16.03.2021 nationals. The case concerned the annulment of the Violation of Article 14 read together with applicant’s title to a plot of land that he had Article 8 (right to private life and family) bought from a private individual for market No violation of Article 34 (right of individual gardening, and the return of that land to petition)

- 26 -

Press country profile - Russia

the municipality of Omsk, at the request of Violation of Article 13 (right to a remedy) the public prosecutor. by Russia Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 It found no violation of either Article by the Republic of Moldova. Bokova v. Russia 16.04.2019 Volokitin and Others v. Russia The case concerned the interim seizure, 03.07.2018 followed by the definitive transfer, of a The case concerned Russia’s failure to house belonging to Ms Bokova – who had redeem Soviet-era premium bonds. acquired it through inheritance in 2003 – by Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the criminal court which had tried and The Court noted that it had already dealt convicted her husband on fraud charges. with similar claims and had found a Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, owing to a failure to repay a different type Kopytok v. Russia of bond, the Harvest-90 bonds (Malysh and 15.01.2019 Others), and for non-redemption of the The case concerned the applicant’s 1982 bonds (Yuriy Lobanov and complaint about buying a flat which in the Andreyeva). eyes of the law could still be used by The Court also said that there was a members of the seller’s family. structural problem in Russia with regard to Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the redemption of this debt and directed Barkanov v. Russia the Government and the Council of 16.10.2018 Ministers of the Council of Europe to discuss The case concerned restrictions imposed by what steps were needed to resolve the the Russian authorities between 2008 and issue. 2017 on the use of a helicopter belonging Tkachenko v. Russia to Mr Barkanov. 20.03.2018 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The case concerned an expropriation Zhidov and Others v. Russia procedure in respect of the applicants’ 16.10.2018 house, which was located on a plot of land The case concerned judicial decisions belonging to the municipality. ordering the demolition of buildings Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 belonging to the applicants, at their Volchkova and Mironov v. Russia expense and without compensation, on the 28.03.2017 grounds that they were situated near gas The case concerned the expropriation of a and oil pipelines. The buildings in question property situated in the town of Lyubertsy, were classified as illegal constructions. near Moscow, for a private investment Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as construction project. The applicants, regards Ms Kastornova, Ms Vdovina and Mr owners of a plot of land and house in Vdovin Lyubertsy, complained in particular that No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as they had been deprived of their property regards Mr Zhidov and Ms Kosenko solely for the benefit of a private Sandu and Others v. the Republic of investment project, a multi-storey block of Moldova and Russia flats, which had not pursued any social 17.07.2018 purpose, and that the compensation they The case concerned complaints by had been awarded was derisory. 1,646 individual Moldovan applicants and Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 three companies that they had not been able to access land in the separatist region Inadmissibility decisions of the “Moldovan Transdniestrian Republic” (“the MRT”) or had suffered other Kvyatkovskiy v. Russia restrictions. 18.10.2018 Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by The case concerned the domestic courts’ Russia decision to order the demolition of two buildings belonging to the applicant.

- 27 -

Press country profile - Russia

Application declared inadmissible as and 3 parents of pupils in the schools manifestly ill-founded. concerned) Violation by Russia of Article 8 (right to Shtolts and Others v. Russia respect for private life) in respect of 22.02.2018 10 applicants (staff members of the schools The application concerned the concerned) on account of harassment by non-enforcement and delayed enforcement the “MRT” authorities of judgments ordering the State to provide Violation by Russia of Article 5 § 1 (right to the applicants with housing. liberty and security) in respect of The Court found that the applicants were 3 applicants (staff members of one of the required to lodge a court action for schools concerned) compensation under domestic law, the Violation by Russia of Article 8 (right to amended Compensation Act, rather than respect for private and family life) on maintain their applications to Strasbourg. It account of searches imposed on therefore declared the application 3 applicants (staff members of one of the inadmissible. schools concerned) and the seizure of their property by the “MRT” authorities Right to education cases No violation by the Republic of Moldova of (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1) Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the Convention in respect of Perovy v. Russia 8 applicants (5 pupils and 3 parents of 20.10.2020 pupils in the schools concerned) The case concerned the Russian Orthodox No violation by the Republic of Moldova of rite of blessing in a classroom. The Article 8 (right to respect for private life) in applicants in the case are a married couple respect of 10 applicants (staff members of (the first and second applicants) and their the schools concerned) on account of son (the third applicant) who are not alleged harassment by the “MRT” members of the Russian Orthodox Church. authorities They all alleged that the son had been No violation by the Republic of Moldova of forced to participate in the rite when Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) starting his new school year at the age of in respect of 3 applicants, staff members in seven, while the parents, who had not been one of those schools informed about the ceremony, complained No violation by the Republic of Moldova of that their right to ensure their son’s Article 8 (right to respect for private and education in conformity with their own family life) on account of searches imposed religious convictions had not been on 3 applicants (staff members of one of respected. the schools concerned) and the seizure of No violation of the first two applicants’ their property by the “MRT” authorities rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 No violation of the third applicant’s rights under Article 9 (freedom of religion) Freedom of movement (Article 2 of Protocol No. 4) Iovcev and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 17.09.2019 Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia The case concerned complaints about pressure that had been brought to bear in Principal judgment 20.12.2016, judgment on 2013-14 by the authorities of the self- just satisfaction 26.03.2019 proclaimed “Moldavian Republic of In its principal judgment the Court found Transdniestria” (the “MRT”), on four that most of the 19 applicants in the case Romanian/Moldovan-speaking schools in had suffered violations of their rights under that Region which used the Latin alphabet. various Articles of the European The applicants were five pupils, three Convention. It delayed a decision on just parents and 10 members of staff of those satisfaction pending a ruling on the same schools. issue by the Grand Chamber in Georgia v. Violation by Russia of Article 2 of Protocol Russia (I) related to a large number of No. 1 in respect of 8 applicants (5 pupils other Georgian applicants.

- 28 -

Press country profile - Russia

The Grand Chamber delivered its just Karpacheva and Karpachev v. Russia satisfaction decision in January 2019. It 27.01.2011 awarded EUR 10 million to be divided The applicants, mother and son, between the victims in that case and laying complained that the son, who is serving a down principles for the distribution of that prison sentence for drug dealing, could not sum. The Chamber applied the same take up permanent residence in Ozersk, a principles in the present case. “closed” town in the Chelyabinsk Region In its just satisfaction judgment, the Court where the Mayak nuclear fuel reprocessing decided that Russia had to pay sums plant is located, because of his criminal ranging from 2,000 euros (EUR) to EUR conviction. 15,000 to Georgian citizens who were subjected to an administrative practice of Tatishvili v. Russia arrest, detention and expulsion in October 22.02.2007 2006. Authorities’ refusal to certify applicant’s residence at a chosen address substantially Shioshvili and Others v. Russia complicated her daily life and rendered 20.12.2016 uncertain her access to medical care. The case concerned the expulsion from Russian territory of a heavily pregnant No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Georgian woman, accompanied by her four young children, in the autumn of 2006. The Timofeyev and Postupkin v. Russia applicants complained that they had been 19.01.2021 collectively expelled from Russia, but then The case concerned the administrative prevented from leaving the country for surveillance of Mr Timofeyev and Mr almost two weeks whilst being exposed to Postupkin after they had served their prison very poor conditions by the Russian sentences. authorities. Though the family did eventually reach Georgia, after arriving the Elections pregnant mother gave birth to a still-born (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1) baby. Davydov and Others v. Russia Cherepanov v. Russia 30.05.2017 06.12.2016 The case concerned allegations of serious The case concerned a travel ban imposed irregularities in counting of votes in on Mr Cherepanov by the bailiff service in St Petersburg for the city and federal Moscow. At a time when Mr Cherepanov elections of December 2011, as well as a had not yet been informed of the ban, he lack of effective review of those allegations. had been stopped by border guards whilst According to the applicants, the results for trying to visit his child living in Italy. dozens of electoral precincts had been Mr Cherepanov complained that the ban distorted in recounts which largely favoured had unlawfully violated his right to leave the ruling party, Yedinaya Rossiya (ER). the country. Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as Khlyustov v. Russia concerned nine of the applicants, in so far 11.07.2013 as they had been denied effective The case concerned the applicant’s examination of their complaints about complaint about a series of six-month serious irregularities in the procedure in travel bans imposed on him by the bailiffs’ which the votes had been recounted. service for his failure to pay a judgment Yabloko Russian United Democratic debt to a private person. Party and Others v. Russia Soltysyak v. Russia 08.11.2016 10.02.2011 The case concerned the decision by the International travel ban on retired military Supreme Court of Karelia to cancel the officer due to his knowledge of state registration of Yabloko candidates in the secrets. October 2006 elections for the Legislative Assembly of Karelia.

- 29 -

Press country profile - Russia

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 in relation Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Karelian regional division of the (protection of property) Yabloko party, and one of its members The Court also held that Russia had to set up, within one year from the date on which Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia the judgment becomes final, an effective 04.07.2013 domestic remedy securing adequate and The case concerned two prisoners who sufficient redress for the non-enforcement complained in particular that their or delayed enforcement of judgments disenfranchisement had violated their right imposing obligations in kind on the Russian to vote and had prevented them from authorities. participating in a number of elections. As regards 600 other similar cases pending Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 before it, the Court decided that Russia had to grant redress, within two years from the Right not to be tried or punished twice date on which the judgment becomes final, (Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7) to all victims of delayed enforcement of judgments imposing obligations in kind who Korneyeva v. Russia had lodged their applications with the 08.10.2019 European Court of Human Rights before The case concerned the applicant being today’s judgment and whose cases were or convicted of two separate offences will be communicated to the Russian originating in the similar circumstances of Government. The Court also decided to an unauthorised rally. adjourn, for a maximum of two years, the Violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 proceedings in all such cases pending the adoption of the above measures by the State. 1 Pilot judgments Ananyev and Other v. Russia Gerasimov and Others v. Russia 10.01.2012 01.07.2014 The case concerned the applicants’ The case concerned 11 applicants living in complaints that they had been detained in various regions of Russia from Vladivostok inhuman and degrading conditions in to Smolensk who were all victims of remand centres awaiting criminal trials excessive delays in the enforcement of against them. Russian court decisions granting them Violation of Articles 3 and 13 (right to an various benefits in kind (such as housing, effective remedy) housing maintenance and repair services, Under Article 46 (enforcement of the Court provision of a car for a disabled person, judgments), the Court held that the delivery of an administrative document, Russian Government had to: etc.).The Russian domestic law allowed no - improve the material conditions of effective redress in respect of those detention, by shielding the toilets in cells, complaints. removing thick netting from cell windows Violation of Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and increasing the frequency of showers; and 13 (right to an effective remedy), and - change the applicable legal framework, as well as practices and attitudes; 1 - ensure that pre-trial detention is only Since 2004 and in response to the large number of cases deriving from systemic or structural problems in used in absolutely necessary cases; certain countries the Court has developed a - establish maximum capacity for each pilot-judgment procedure. This consists in identifying remand prison; and, in a single judgment systemic problems underlying a - ensure that victims can complain violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and indicating in that judgment the remedial measures effectively about inadequate conditions of required to resolve such situations. The pilot-judgment detention and that they obtain appropriate procedure is not only intended to facilitate effective compensation. implementation by respondent states of individual and Russian version press release general measures necessary to comply with the Court’s judgments, but also induces the respondent State to resolve large numbers of individual cases arising from the same structural problem at domestic level, thus reinforcing the principle of subsidiarity which underpins the Convention system.

- 30 -

Press country profile - Russia

Burdov (No 2) v. Russia Inter-State case Georgia v. Russia 15.01.2009 First pilot judgment Russia’s non-compliance with domestic One case is pending before a Chamber court decisions is the largest recurrent issue in all Russian applications concerning Georgia v. Russia (IV) (no. 39611/18) about one third of them. Burdov No 2 is the was lodged on 22 August 2018. It relates to first pilot judgment adopted in respect of the alleged recent deterioration of the Russia. It ordered the introduction of an human-rights situation along the effective domestic remedy in cases of non- administrative boundary lines between enforcement of domestic judicial decisions Georgian-controlled territory and Abkhazia and the settlement of similar cases pending and South Ossetia. before the Court. Violations of Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair There are almost 600 individual trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) applications concerning the hostilities in 2008, against Georgia, against Russia or Decision on admissibility in post-Burdov against both States. No. 2 cases Grand Chamber Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev v. Russia Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia Four Ukraine v. Russia inter-State 24.09.2010 (Decisions) The cases concerned either the cases non-enforcement of domestic court judgments in the applicants’ favour Two are pending before the Grand Chamber (Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev) or the excessive length of court proceedings (Fakhretdinov Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) and Others). (application nos. 20958/14 and The Court decided that the remedy adopted 38334/18) by Russia in response to the Burdov No. 2 The case concerns Ukraine’s allegations of a pilot judgment had to be exhausted before pattern (“administrative practice”) of applying to the European Court of Human violations of the European Convention on Rights. Applications: inadmissible. Human Rights by the Russian Federation in Russian version Press Release Crimea[1]. Application declared partly admissible. The decision will be followed by a judgment at a Inter-state case later date.

Georgia v. Russia (III) (no. 61186/09) Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia was lodged on 16 November 2009 in (nos. 8019/16, 43800/14 and connection with the detention of four 28525/20) Georgian minors by the de facto authorities On 27 November 2020 the Grand Chamber of South Ossetia. Following a visit to South decided to join two inter-State applications, Ossetia by the Human Rights Commissioner which were pending before a Chamber, of the Council of Europe, the four minors namely, Ukraine v. Russia (II) (no. and a further one who had been previously 43800/14) and The Netherlands v. Russia detained were released from detention. On (no. 28525/20), to the inter-State 29 January 2010 the Georgian Government application Ukraine v. Russia (no. informed the Court that they no longer 8019/16). wished to maintain the case. Therefore, on See press release of 4 December 2020. 16 March 2010 a Chamber decided to strike A Grand Chamber hearing will take place on the application out of its list of cases 24 November 2021. (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention).

Noteworthy pending cases

[1] “Crimea” refers to both the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) and the City of Sevastopol.

- 31 -

Press country profile - Russia

Two other cases are pending before a Chamber Inter-state application Russia v.

Ukraine Ukraine v. Russia (IX) (no. 10691/21) was lodged on 19 February 2021. The case concerns the Ukranian Government’s Russia v. Ukraine (no. 36958/21): allegations of an ongoing administrative concerns the Russian Government’s practice by the Russian Federation allegations of, among other things, killings, consisting of targeted assassination abductions, forced displacement, operations against perceived opponents of interference with the right to vote, the Russian Federation, in Russia and on restrictions on the use of the Russian the territory of other States (see language and attacks on Russian embassies press release). and consulates. They also complain about the water supply to Crimea at the Northern Ukraine v. Russia (VIII) (no. Crimean Canal being switched off and 55855/18) was lodged on 29 November allege that Ukraine was responsible for the 2018 and relates to the naval incident that deaths of those on board Malaysia Airlines took place in the Kerch Strait in November Flight MH17 because it failed to close its 2018, which led to the capture of three airspace. Ukrainian naval vessels and their crews. See press release of 23.07.2021.

Another case, Ukraine v. Russia (III) Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia (no. 49537/14), was struck off after the (application nos. 28492/15 and Ukrainian Government stated that it did not 49975/15) wish to pursue it. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation

that they risked ill-treatment if extradited Pending individual applications to Kyrgyzstan because they belonged to the concerning the hostilities in Eastern Uzbek ethnic minority, who have been Ukraine and the events in Crimea persecuted by the authorities since inter- ethnic clashes in 2010. To date there are over 7,000 individual Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture applications before the Court which are and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of apparently related to the events in Crimea the European Convention, the applicants or the hostilities in Eastern Ukraine. complain that their removal to Kyrgyzstan Amongst these applications, the Court would put them at real risk of ill-treatment, informed the respondent Government of alleging in particular that the Kyrgyz the applications lodged by relatives of authorities’ assurances are unreliable. victims of the downing of Malaysian Airlines In its Chamber judgment of 19 November flight MH17 in July 2014 (Ioppa v. 2019, the Court held, by five votes to two, Ukraine and 3 Other applications, no. that there would be no violation of Article 3 73776/14, and Ayley and Others v. of the European Convention on Human Russia, no. 25714/16 and Angline and Rights if the applicants were extradited to Others v. Russia, no. 56328/18), the Kyrgyzstan. case of a Ukrainian Air Force servicewoman The Chamber further decided, by six votes who had been held by armed groups in to one, to continue to indicate to the eastern Ukraine and by Russia for almost Russian Government not to extradite or two years (Savchenko v. Russia, no. otherwise involuntarily remove the 50171/14) and a case concerning the applicants to Kyrgyzstan until the Chamber imprisoned film director Oleg Sentsov judgment had become final or until further (Sentsov v. Russia, no. 48881/14). order. On 15 April 2020 the Grand Chamber Panel Further information can be found in the accepted the applicants’ request that the press releases published on 27 August 2018 case be referred to the Grand Chamber. (press release), 17 December 2018 (press A Grand Chamber hearing took place on release) and on 4 April 2019 (press 20 January 2021 release).

- 32 -

Press country profile - Russia

of expression was violated. They claim, in Chamber particular, that the interference was not lawful, because Article 152 of the Civil Code Ecodefence and Others v. Russia of Russia made no distinction between (no. 9988/13) statements of fact and value judgments. Case communicated to the Government in They also claim that the interference was March 2017 not “necessary in a democratic society” The applicants, eleven Russian NGOs, because the domestic courts failed to complain under Articles 10 (freedom of examine the case in line with the expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly requirements of Article 10 of the and association) of the Convention, Convention and because the interference concerning the quality of the Foreign was disproportional to the legitimate aim Agents Act adopted in 2012, their pursued. persecution for failing to register as foreign agents, and excessive State control. Pending cases Navalnyy Orlov and Memorial v. Russia (no. 48557/10) Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 62670/12) Case communicated to the Government in Case communicated on 17 November 2016 January 2016 Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 32058/13) The application concerns a statement Case communicated on 15 May 2014: published by the first applicant on the second applicant’s official website in Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 1176/15) connection with the abduction and murder Case communicated on 20 February 2018 of Ms Natalia Estemirova, a human rights Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 25809/17) activist and campaigner who had worked Case communicated on 19 June 2017 many years in the Chechen Republic as the chief officer of the second applicant. The Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 67894/17) statement was prepared and published Case communicated on 9 March 2018 shortly after the police had found Ms N. Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (no. Estemirova’s body. According to the 78193/17) statement, the President of the Chechen Case communicated on 21 December 2017 Republic, Mr R. Kadyrov, had intimidated her and was guilty of her murder. Following Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 55589/17) the publication, Mr R. Kadyrov successfully Case communicated on 28 January 2020 sued the applicants for defamation. The Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 56491/18) courts found that the applicants had Case communicated on 28 January 2020 disseminated untrue and therefore Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 36418/20) defamatory expressions regarding Mr R. Kadyrov and ordered them to publish a Case communicated on 12 January 2021 disclaimer and to pay compensation for Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 4743/21) non-pecuniary damage in the amount of Case communicated on 16 April 2021 RUB 20,000 (EUR 454.24) and RUB 50,000 (EUR 1,135.59) respectively. The applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention that their right to freedom

ECHR Press Unit Contact: +33 (0)3 90 21 42 08

- 33 -