Cases 1 - 20 of 674

Tsakoyev and Tsakoyeva v. Russia, (16397/07)

Judgement date: 02/10/2018
Communicated: 16/06/2009
Lodged: 09/04/2007
Date of violations: 27/09/2004
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria, Nalchik
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Torture

On 27 September 2004 Rasul Tsakoyev was detained and taken to the Organized Crime Unit of the Ministry of the Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria (OCU) in Nalchik. Between 27 and 29 September he was repeatedly tortured by OCU officers who tried to force him to confess to participation in an illegal armed group. The officers beat him with rubber truncheons, burned cigarettes against his body, put needles under his nails and tortured him with electric shocks. At about 8 p.m. on 29 September Rasul was brought home in a very bad shape. His relatives immediately called for an ambulance and he was taken to the emergency room where he was diagnosed with multiple serious injuries. On 4 October 2004 Rasul died in the hospital.

 

Dashuyeva Eliza v. Russia, (5725/11)

Communicated: 07/09/2018
Lodged: 22/12/2010
Date of violations: 14/10/2006
Location: Chechnya, Prigorodnoye village
Representative: No representative
Violation: Right to life

The present case regards the deaths of the applicant’s brother and mother. On 17 November 2005 the applicant’s brother, Mr Zelimkhan Dashuyev, was abducted from his house in the Prigorodnoye village, in the Grozny district by a group of State servicemen in camouflage uniforms. The next day his body, bearing the traces of a violent death, was found in the vicinity of the Chechen-Aul village in the Grozny district. Even though, the criminal case was opened, it was suspended on several occasions and there was no progress in the investigation. On 14 October 2006 an unidentified person opened fire in the street, in the vicinity of the house of the applicant’s mother (Ms Ayupova). As a result, she received a gunshot wound to the chest and died instantly. The investigation was suspended on several occasions. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that her brother and then her mother had been killed by State agents in 2005 and 2006 respectively and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their deaths.

 

Abuyevа Marusa v. Russia, (63329/14)

Communicated: 06/09/2018
Lodged: 05/09/2014
Date of violations: 04/02/2000
Location: Chechnya, Katyr-Yurt
Representative: Others
Violation: Indiscriminate bombing

The applicant’s son, Ruslan Abuyev died in 2000 as a result of bombing of the Chechen village Katyr-Yurt. The Court examined the episode of bombing on several occasions in the following judgments: Isayeva v. Russia, Abuyeva and Others v. Russia and Abakarova v. Russia. In the Isayeva judgment the Court found violations of Article 2 on the account of the State’s failure to protect the right to life and to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the military operation. In 2010 the Court delivered its judgment in Abuyeva and Others,  finding that, as in Isayeva, that the planning and execution of the airstrike had been carried out in violation of Article 2 of the Convention and that all the major flaws of the investigation into the military operation indicated in Isayeva had persisted throughout the second round of criminal investigations into the matter, which ended in 2007. In 2015 the Court further examined the same situation in the judgment it delivered in the case of Abakarova, where the applicant complained of the same airstrike and of the continuing failure of the authorities to investigate the matter effectively. As regards the investigation, the Court found that none of the issues raised in the two previous cases had been resolved by the domestic authorities. In April 2017 the Committee of Ministers published its 10th annual report (for 2016) concerning the supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. It stated that there was no progress in the investigation. In the present application the applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the bombing in Katyr-Yurt. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complains of lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention.

 

Gaysultanov and Others against Russia, (52867/15)

Communicated: 03/09/2018
Lodged: 16/10/2015
Date of violations: 10/03/2013
Location: Ingushetia, Bamut village
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Right to life

In the period of March 2013 the special military operation “Barrier 2013” took place at the administrative border of Ingushetia and Chechnya. It was aimed at arresting members of illegal armed groups hiding in the forests in the area. According to the applicants (parents of Usman Gaysultanov), they were never informed about the operation. On 10 March 2013 the applicants’ sons Usman and Mayrbek Gaysultanov, the third applicant and eleven other residents of Achkhoy-Martan boarded a URAL lorry to go to Bamut village to pick ramsons. On the way to the forest the lorry passed through a military checkpoint without being stopped. Moreover, there were no warnings signs or markings around the area and no information concerning a special operation in the vicinity of the forest. While picking up ramsons, the three men were subjected to a half-hour of mortar fire. Usman Gaysultanov was severely wounded by one of the projectiles and both of his legs were torn off. The third applicant received serious injuries to the lower part of his body. As soon as the pickers were able to leave the forest, they went to Bamut village, from where Usman Gaysultanov was taken to a hospital in Grozny and the third applicant to a hospital in Urus-Martan.On the following day, Mr Gaysultanov died in the hospital. The applicants complain under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to safeguard the right to life of Mr Usman Gaysultanov and the third applicant by failing to warn them about the special operation. They also allege that the authorities failed to comply with the negative obligation under Article 2 as the men had been subjected to mortar fire aimed at them by State agents. In addition, under the procedural limb of Article 2  the applicants complain that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter.

 

Alikhanov and Others v. Russia, (17054/06)

Judgement date: 28/08/2018
Communicated: 07/04/2009
Lodged: 05/04/2006
Date of violations: 23/12/2004
Location: Dagestan, Makhachkala
Representative: Others
Violation: Disappearance
Extra-judicial execution

In the evening on 23 December 2004, Amrikhan Alikhanov was driving to the village of Kaspiysk, Dagestan. At transport police check point “Mars-20” on the outskirts of Makhachkala, his car was stopped by several men in police uniform and masks. They put Amrikhan into one of their cars before driving away. According to police officers serving at the check point, the men had introduced themselves as officers of the Organized Crime Unit. Amrikhan has not been seen since. In April 2005 six bodies bearing signs of torture were discovered in a forest near the village of Zamay-Yurt, Chechnya and immediately buried. Amrikhan's clothes were found close to the discovery site. They were bloodied and pierced with bullet holes.

 

PSHIBIYEV et BEROV contre la Russie, (63748/13)

Communicated: 11/07/2018
Lodged: 07/08/2013
Date of violations: 07/08/2012
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Private and family life

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that for already seven years they cannot receive a long-term visit with their relevants, who are detained in prisons. They also complain about the conditions of the short-term visits. In particular, they complain about the impossibility of physical contact with their relatives from behind the wall installed in the rooms, the bugging of the device used to communicate with them, and the prohibition of their minor children to visit their parents.

 

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.

 

Khatimat Saidova v. Russia, (36963/09)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2009
Date of violations: 17/07/2005
Location: Dagestan, Makhachkala
Representative: EHRAC/Memorial
Violation: Disappearance

In 2004 Mr Salikh Saidov, the applicant's son, moved from Makhachkala (Daghestan) to Moscow. In July 2005 three friends of Mr Saidov from Dagestan informed the applicant that they had been arrested with her son in Moscow. They were released, whereas Mr. Saidov was not. The applicant then found out that upon the request of investigator E.A. from the Dagestan Prosecutor’s office, on 17 July 2005 Mr Salikh had been arrested by the police in Moscow and taken for questioning to Makhachkala. According to the applicant, in Makhachkala her son was taken to the 6th Department of Ministry of the Interior (the Organised Crime Unit) for 3 days and then transferred to ORB-2 (police operational –search bureau no. 2) in Grozny, Chechnya. Since his detention on 17 July 2005 Mr Saidov has 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 her son's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, she 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.

 

Zhovbatyrov and Dorsigova v. Russia, (6594/15)

Communicated: 16/05/2018
Lodged: 27/01/2015
Date of violations: 04/08/2011
Location: Ingushetia, Ordzhenikidzevskaya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Disappearance

A perimeter set up around a residential quarter in the settlement of Ordzhenikidzevskaya. Passport spot check carried out by armed persons in camouflage uniforms without insignia who drove around in two Gazel-model minibuses. One of the buses had registration number containing digits 904 or 906 and the region indication 06.

 

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.

 

Darsigova v. Russia, (54382/09)

Judgement date: 15/05/2018
Communicated: 10/11/2016
Lodged: 29/09/2009
Date of violations: 24/02/2009
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: Others
Violation: Property

In 1999 the administrative authorities of the Leninskiy District of Grozny provided the applicant with a housing allocation (a one‑room municipal flat in Grozny), where she consequently registered in 2005. Two years later, in 2007, the authorities decided to conduct an examination of all allocation orders granting occupation of municipal accommodation. The applicant’s housing allocation order appeared suspicious to the authorities and they commissioned an expert to verify its authenticity. The examination concluded that the allocation order was a forged document and the administration of Grozny brought court proceedings seeking to declare the allocation order null and void and to evict her from the flat in question. On 24 February 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny declared the housing allocation order null and void and issued an order to evict the applicant without provision of alternative accommodation. The Court held that there has been a violation of the applicant's right to respect for her home, as provided by Article 8 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.

 

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.

 

Aslanbekova and Others v. Russia, (63554/13)

Communicated: 26/03/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2013
Date of violations: 06/03/2000
Location: Chechnya, Duba-Yurt
Representative: Others
Violation: Disappearance

On 6 March 2000, during the identity check, the military servicemen forced the applicants and their relatives into a URAL military lorry which took them to another checkpoint. There women were released whereas six men were detained, allegedly for an identity check. They 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.

 
Cases 1 - 20 of 674