Cases 1 - 20 of 659

Dzhanaraliyev and Others v. Russia, (67947/13; 24632/15; 53248/15)

Judgement date: 14/06/2018
Lodged: 18/10/2013
Date of violations: 22/08/2008
Location: Dagestan
Representative: Others
Violation: Proper medical assistance

The applicants complained principally about the poor conditions of their detention, aggravated by the seriousness of their medical problems and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

 

Ugurchiyev and Others v. Russia, (33731/14)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 24/04/2014
Date of violations: 23/08/2011
Location: Ingushetia, Sunzhenskiy District
Representative: SRJI
Astreya
Violation: Disappearance

On 23 August 2011, two men, Mr Ugurchiyev and Mr Bersanov, were abducted in front of their house by a group of about ten armed men in black and camouflage uniforms and balaclavas who drove a white GAZEL-model minibus with tinted windows and a silver Lada-Priora model car. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for the men's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as their relatives' disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their sons' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Aziyeva and Others v. Russia, (2297/15)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 26/08/2015
Date of violations: 05/12/2014
Location: Chechnya, Naurskiy District
Representative: SRJI
Astreya
Violation: Disappearance

On 5 December 2014 a police officer arrived at one of the applicants’ houses and took Mr Bislan Aziyev and Mr Kazbek Karimov to the same police station to clarify some information. At about midnight of the same day the father of Mr. Aziyev telephoned that police officer. The officer told him that his son and Mr Karimov would be released soon. However, the applicants’ sons did not return home. On 5 January 2015 the applicants were taken to the ROVD where they were informed them that both men had been released from on 6 December 2014 and that their whereabouts after that date were unknown. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for the men's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their sons' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Markha Indrisova v. Russia, (19/16)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 26/12/2015
Date of violations: 06/02/2014
Location: Chechnya, Sadovoye, Grozny District
Representative: Tagir Shamsudinov
Violation: Disappearance

Mr M. Magomadov, the applicant's spouse, went outside his home after somebody knocked on the gate. When his brother looked outside, he only saw a white Lada-Priora model car driving off. Mr. Magomadov has been missing since. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her husband's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she complained that her husband's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Isayeva and Others v. Russia, (21260/16)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 12/04/2016
Date of violations: 05/12/2014
Location: Chechnya, Naurskiy District
Representative: SRJI
Astreya
Violation: Disappearance

On 5 December 2014 the five men (the sons of the four applicants) were taken by the police to the Naurskiy ROVD. According to the applicants, it was done within the campaign of reprisals for the armed attack on State bodies in Grozny on 3-4 December 2014. That campaign included burning of houses of family members of persons suspected of involvement in illegal armed groups, their arrests and detentions. It was told that the men had been released on 6 December 2014, bud they have gone missing since. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their sons' abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their sons' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Valigabandov v. Russia, (67897/16)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 22/08/2016
Date of violations: 22/08/2013
Location: Dagestan, Makhachkala
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Disappearance

On 22 August 2013 the applicant's brother, Mr Omar Valibagandov went to work. He first stopped to answer the phone calls and in the evening of the same day he ended in the hospital, being shot in the thigh with a rubber bullet. He was taken to the Karabudakhkent Central Hospital by a group of officers from the FSB and shortly thereafter transferred to the Izberbash hospital handcuffed and under their surveillance. On the premises of the Izberbash hospital a group of about 20-25 police officers waited for the ambulance with the applicant’s brother. In the hospital, during the removal of the bullet, Mr Valigabandov told the doctors that he had been beaten, shot and abducted by the law-enforcement officers. Shortly after he was taken to the police car and driven off. He has gone missing since. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for his brother's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Moreover, the applicant complained of the State’s failure to comply with the positive obligation to protect the right to life of his disappeared brother. He additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the brother's disappearance led to a mental suffering. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained that his brother's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, he had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Pyatimat Ausheva v. Russia, (56941/17)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 17/02/2017
Date of violations: 17/02/2012
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: No representative
Violation: Disappearance

On 17 February 2012 the applicant's son, Mr Rustam Aushev left home to go to Belgium to visit his sister.  He was at the Mineralnye Vody train station, when a group of seven men in civilian clothing approached him, showed him their service identity cards and then forced him in their white Gazel-model minivan. One of the abductors later introduced himself to the train station’s security personnel as Officer L. from the FSB and showed them his service identity card. After that Mr Aushev gone missing. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her son's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the son's disappearance led to a mental suffering. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained that her son's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Leyla Khamarzovna Muruzheva v. Russia, (62526/15)

Judgement date: 15/05/2018
Communicated: 25/04/2018
Lodged: 11/12/2015
Date of violations: 25/04/2015
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Private and family life

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 25 June 2014 granting her a residence order in respect of her children.

 

Elita Khaidovna Magomadova v. Russia, (77546/14)

Judgement date: 10/04/2018
Communicated: 04/06/2015
Lodged: 05/12/2014
Date of violations: 10/02/2014
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Private and family life

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the refusal to grant her a residence order in respect of her son. She alleges in this connection that the domestic courts did not assess the family situation and the best interests of the child with sufficient thoroughness. In particular, they disregarded the fact that from his birth and until his abduction by E. I had lived with the applicant. Nor did they take into account that E. had a criminal record. They had not assessed properly the applicant’s and E.’s financial and family situations or work schedules. The applicant further alleges that the childcare authority of Grozny issued its opinion that I. should live with his father without meeting her or examining her living conditions.

 

Raysa Magamadova v. Russia, (57707/13)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 01/03/2013
Date of violations: 01/03/2002
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Disappearance

On 1 March 2002 the applicant's husband, Mr M. Magamadov, was abducted by a group of men in military uniforms and balaclavas, who drove around in two Armoured Personnel Carriers (the APCs) without registration numbers. The abductors did not ask for identity documents, but immediately started to beat Mr Magamadov and the applicant when she tried to help him. Then the abductors forced him in one of their APCs and drove off to an unknown destination. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for her husband's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. She additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as her husband's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she complained that her husband's unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, she had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Umayeva and Others v. Russia, (61555/13)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 26/12/2013
Date of violations: 26/12/2000
Location: Chechnya, Zamay-Yurt
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Disappearance

On 26 December 2000 the two brothers, Visait and Vesmirt Eskiyev were abducted from their house by a group of about 25-30 armed men in military uniforms. The abductors started to beat Visait Eskiyev, when his brother tried to help him, so he was beaten too. Then both men were forced in the abductors’ APC and taken to an unknown destination. They have been missing since. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their husbands' abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their husbands' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Adisova and Others v. Russia, (13793/13)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 12/04/2013
Date of violations: 12/04/2002
Location: Chechnya, Alleroy
Representative: Tagir Shamsudinov
Violation: Disappearance

On 12 April 2002, four men were taken away during a “mopping-up” operation conducted in the Alleroy settlement. More than 4 officers participated in the abduction. They were in military uniform and conducted an identity check: searched the house premises and questioned local residents. The four men have been missing since.  The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives' abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their relatives' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Patsuyev and Others v Russia, (9862/12)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 21/08/2012
Date of violations: 21/08/2003
Location: Ingushetia, Sunzhenskiy District
Representative: No representative
Violation: Disappearance

Adam Patsuyev, Ibragim Idigov and Salam Kerimov are cousins. On 21/08/2003 they went to the Sunzhenskiy district hospital where Ibragim Idigov was to have a wound bandaged. At about 2 p.m. two GAZEL-model minivans arrived at the hospital. A group of about 15 to 20 armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas yelled to those present to get on the ground. They kept shooting in the air and running around, looking for someone. Six of the armed men ran into the surgery unit where they beat Mr R.S. who was undergoing wound dressing unconscious and Lom-Ali SHAIPOV who was there with him, breaking Mr Shaipov’s arm. Then they forced Mr R.S. and Mr SHAIPOV into one of their vehicles. Meanwhile, Mr. Idigov tried to escape and was shot in the shoulder. Mr Patsyev and Mr Kerimov wanted to help him, but were beaten by the armed men. Then all three of them were forced into the car and drove in an uknown direction. On the way from the hospital, the abductors drove next to the local police car who had been summoned by the hospital’s security. The policemen did not take any steps to stop the abductors. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives' abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the men's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their relatives' unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Dibikhan Pugoyeva v. Russia, (43479/14)

Communicated: 23/02/2018
Lodged: 06/06/2014
Date of violations: 22/11/2010
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Killing

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that her son Magomed Gorchkhanov was abducted and killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate the matter. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she alleges that her son’s arrest and detention by State agents were unlawful and under Article 13 of the Convention, that she had no effective domestic remedies against the violations alleged under Article 2 of the Convention.

 

Bopkhoyeva v. Russia, (25414/14)

Judgement date: 20/02/2018
Communicated: 23/01/2015
Lodged: 24/03/2014
Date of violations: 11/12/2011
Location: Ingushetia, Galashki
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Right to life
Non-pecuniary damage: 20000 €

In Galashki, Ingushetiya Republic, on 11 December 2009 the applicant was abducted by S. with intent to marry her. She was kept locked in a room without being able to communicate with people outside S.’s family. The applicant told her mother once that her mother-in-law claimed that the applicant would not last living with them longer than two months. On 2 February 2010 the applicant lost consciousness and was taken to hospital. She has not regained consciousness since then. The investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of causing serious damage to health. The applicant complains under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that the inquiry into the circumstances leading to the serious deterioration of her health allegedly resulting from ill-treatment she sustained while kept at her husband’s house was not effective.

 

Machigov v. Russia 5 other applications, (8417/10;11708/11; 32771/14; 46403/14; 53158/15; 3779/16)

Communicated: 05/02/2018
Lodged: 24/11/2009
Date of violations: 29/09/2000
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance

On 29/09/2000 Mr Kazbek Machigov, was arrestedon his way to the market by three officers: Mr A.S., Mr A.G. and Mr V.S. on suspicion of alleged drug use and taken in their UAZ vehicle to the Oktyabrskiy district police station in Grozny. He has gone missing since.

 

Turpulkhanova against Russia and 3 other applications, ( 53284/13; 22543/15; 18988/16; 19820/16)

Communicated: 05/02/2018
Lodged: 29/04/2013
Date of violations: 01/11/2011
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance

In the evening on 31/10/2011 Ms Mezhidova, having returned home from work, received several phone calls. She left her mobile telephone home and gone out to meet someone late in the evening. According to the applicant, her daughter left the house to meet a police officer Mr I.M. from the Shali district police station and gone missing since. According to the witness statements obtained by the investigation, since 2009 Ms Mezhidova had a romantic relationship with Mr I.M. which they kept secret as the officer was afraid of retaliation from her male relatives. On 16/11/2011 a woman’s hand was found on the premises of a school in Grozny. According to the applicant, the remains could have belonged to her missing daughter.

 

Murdalovy and 2 other applications v. Russia, (51933/08; 66638/16; 45131/17)

Communicated: 09/01/2018
Lodged: 14/10/2008
Date of violations: 02/01/2001
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance

The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives’ abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had suffered mentally on account of their relatives’ disappearance and their inability to ascertain their faith as well as the authorities’ indifference to their complaints and requests for assistance in elucidating the circumstances of the incidents. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relatives’ unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Midayavy and 4 other applications v. Russia, (26220/15; 37575/15; 28770/16; 35838/16; 37221/16)

Communicated: 09/01/2018
Lodged: 25/02/2015
Date of violations: 04/12/2003
Location: Chechnya
Representative: D. Itslayev
Violation: Disappearance

The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State agents had been responsible for their relatives’ abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had suffered mentally on account of their relatives’ disappearance and their inability to ascertain their faith as well as the authorities’ indifference to their complaints and requests for assistance in elucidating the circumstances of the incidents. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relatives’ unlawful detention violated that provision in its entirety and that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Magometkhozhiyev and Amalayev v. Russia, (18940/08; 61716/08)

Judgement date: 05/12/2017
Communicated: 09/11/2015
Lodged: 14/03/2008
Date of violations: 10/03/2000
Location: Chechnya
Representative: D. Itslayev
Violation: Property

The applicants complained of a breach of their property rights through the actions of Russian military forces in Chechnya in 2000 and the failure of the competent domestic authorities to provide them with effective remedies in respect of those breaches. The Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

 
Cases 1 - 20 of 659