Cases 21 - 40 of 670

Dadayeva and Others v. Russia, (3634/17)

Communicated: 22/03/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2017
Date of violations: 22/10/2003
Location: Chechnya, Pobedinskoye village, Grozny District
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Disappearance

On 22 October, 2003, Mr Said-Khasan Dudarkayev and his brother were abducted from their house. A group of armed men in uniforms broke in and took them away. According to the victim's brother, they were taken to an unidentified location in the vicinity of Grozny and subjected to an identification parade. After that Said-Khasan was taken away in a different vehicle. He has been missing since. His brother was released and returned home. The applicants (the victim's wife and children) complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State agents had been responsible for their relative’s abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the State then had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. They additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as the man's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their relative’s 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.

 

Dzhalilov v. Russia, (11499/14)

Communicated: 22/03/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2014
Date of violations: 06/01/2005
Location: Dagestan, The police checkpoint "Yarag-Kazlalyar", in the Derbent District
Representative: Others
Violation: Disappearance

On 6 January 2005, the applicant's wife, Ms Serizha Dzhalilova, was arrested at the checkpoint during her shopping trip to Azerbaijan and taken to the headquarters of the Federal Security Service in Khankala on the following day. Subsequently, the FSB office in Khankala was closed in July 2005. All the documents were destroyed, the FSB officers who arrested the applicant’s wife never subjected to identification parade. The woman has been missing since. The applicant complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for his wife's abduction and subsequent disappearance and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. He additionally alleged the violation of Article 3, as his wife's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicant. Under Article 5 of the Convention, he complained that Ms' Dzhalilova'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.

 

Israilovy v. Russia, (71398/14)

Communicated: 22/03/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2014
Date of violations: 10/11/2002
Location: Chechnya, Noviy Tsentaroy, the Grozny District
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Disappearance

At night of 10 November 2002 a group of armed men in military uniforms and balaclavas, who were speaking unaccented Russian, arrived at the applicant's house in a UAZ military type van. Mr Nurdi Israilov was abducted and has been missing since, while his son, Mr Bekkhan Israilov, was shot dead. The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for Mr. Nurdi Israilov's abduction and subsequent disappearance, as well as for the killing of Mr Bekkhan Israilov 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 tragedy led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their relatives' unlawful detention/death 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.

"

 

Zara Magomadova and Others v. Russia, (67207/14)

Communicated: 22/03/2018
Lodged: 09/08/2014
Date of violations: 21/03/2000
Location: Chechnya, village of Goy-Chu, the Urus-Martan District
Representative: MATERI CHECHNI
Violation: Disappearance

On 21 March 2000, the applicants' brother, Mr Aslan Magomadov, went to Grozny on an errand and did not return. At the time military clashes between illegal armed groups and the federal military forces were taking place in the area. The applicant’s relative was later seen in Goy-Chu and appeared on a TV footage as one of the arrested members of illegal armed groups (video submitted to the Court). The applicants complained under Article 2  that the State agents had been responsible for their relative'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 man's disappearance led to a mental suffering of the applicants. Under Article 5 of the Convention, they complained that their Mr Magomadov's 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.

 

Kaimova and Others v. Russia, (24132/12)

Judgement date: 21/11/2017
Communicated: 03/12/2014
Lodged: 11/04/2012
Date of violations: 01/07/2010
Location: Chechnya
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Ill-treatment

Mr M. Kaimov, having been diagnosed with tuberculosis, started receiving anti-bacterial treatment. On 23 September 2006 Mr M. Kaimov was arrested and, by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic, on 28 October 2008 he was found guilty of several counts of criminal offences and sentenced to six years and six months of imprisonment. On 1 July 2010 Mr M. Kaimov died. On the following day the authorities issued the death certificate. It did not indicate the cause of death.

 

Kabardokov and 22 other applicationss v. Russia, (11421/13)

Judgement date: 07/11/2017
Communicated: 24/08/2014
Lodged: 22/01/2013
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria, Nalchik
Representative: M. Abubakarov
Violation: Property

The applicants live in various towns of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria.They were clean-up workers at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. As a result they suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions which later led to their disability. In late 2010 the Nalchik Town Court of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria  awarded the applicants compensations of non pecuniary damage in the above connection. The judgments above have not been appealed against and became final and enforceable. However, Federal Treasury Fund on behalf of the Russian Ministry of Finance lodged an appeal requesting that the statutory ten-day time limit for lodging such an appeal against the judgments be restored. Finally, the ten-day time limit was restored and the decision regarding the compensation was quashed. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that restoration of the time-limit for an appeal resulting in quashing of the final judgment in their favour violated the principle of legal certainty.

 

Vorokov and 9 other applications v. Russia, (76648/12; 15473/13; 18775/13; 19179/13; 19237/13; 19422/13; 19541/13; 23177/13; 58441/13; 60167/13)

Judgement date: 07/11/2017
Communicated: 27/08/2014
Date of violations: 10/11/2012
Location: Kabardino-Balkaria, Nalchik
Representative: M. Abubakarov
Violation: Fair trial

The applicants were clean-up workers at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. As a result they suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions which later led to their disability. In early 2011 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Nalchik Town Court of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria (“the Town Court”) against the Russian Ministry of Finance seeking compensation of non pecuniary damage in the above connection.On 12 April 2011 the Town Court allowed the applicants’ claims in part and awarded the applicants compensations. The judgment above has not been appealed against and became final and enforceable. On 17 August 2012 the Department of the Federal Treasury Fund in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kabardino Balkaria and requested that the statutory ten day time limit for lodging such an appeal against the judgments be restored. On 24 August 2012 the Town Court ordered that the time limit for appeal be extended on the grounds that there was no evidence that the FTF had received copy of the judgment in due course. The applicants complain, among others, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that restoration of the time-limit for an appeal resulting in quashing of the final judgment in their favour violated the principle of legal certainty.

 

Gisayev and Others v. Russia, (27240/09)

Communicated: 05/06/2013
Lodged: 24/04/2009
Admissible: 29/08/2017
Location: Chechnya, Grozny
Representative: No representative
Violation: Killing

In 1990 Imran Gisayev took part in a brawl in which a certain S. was fatally wounded and died shortly afterwards. While nobody was convicted for his death, S’s relatives killed Imran Gisayev on 11 December 1998. U.S., the father of S., testified on 29 December 1998 that it had been his nephew, K.S., who had killed Imran Gisayev as a vengeance. On 11 February 1999 an investigator who led the initial stages of the investigation was questioned after the first applicant had alleged that he had promised the family of S. that he would not arrest the murderer. Subsequently, no one was prosecuted for the killing.The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that the investigation into the death of Imran Gisayev has not been effective and that the perpetrators have not been tried.

 

Said-Khamzat TATAYEV and Others, (51928/15)

Communicated: 08/08/2017
Lodged: 14/10/2015
Date of violations: 11/02/2010
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Killing

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 their four killed relatives and that of the fifth applicant and the disappeared Mr Vakhayev by failing to warn them about the special operation. Furthermore, the applicants allege that the authorities also failed to comply with the negative obligation of that provision as their four relatives and the fifth applicant had been shot intentionally by State agents and Mr Vakhayev had been abducted by them during the special operation. The applicants complain under the procedural limb of Article 2 that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention, the fourth and seventh applicants complain of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their brother Mayr-Ali Vakhayev. Under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a lack of effective remedies in respect of the above-mentioned complaints

 

Uzhakhov and Albagachiyeva v. Russia, (76635/11)

Communicated: 27/06/2017
Lodged: 26/11/2011
Date of violations: 25/11/2009
Location: Ingushetia
Representative: No representative
Violation: Killing

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that State agents killed their relative Mr Khamzat Uzhakhov and that no effective investigation was carried out into the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention the second applicant complains that she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during the house search conducted on 25 November 2009 and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter. Under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain of the unlawful search, and of the destruction and theft of the second applicant’s family property during that unlawful search carried out on 25 November 2009.

 

Satybalova and Others against Russia, (79947/12)

Communicated: 27/06/2017
Lodged: 10/12/2012
Date of violations: 02/05/2010
Location: Dagestan
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Ill-treatment

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative Marat Satybalov was subjected to severe beatings by the police officers and died as a result. They further allege that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter.
Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the police officers subjected Mr Satybalov to severe ill-treatment and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complain that Mr Satybalov’s overnight detention at the police station between 2 and 3 May 2010 was unlawful. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants allege that they had no effective domestic remedies against the above-mentioned violations.

 

Saidgadzhiyev and Akhmedov v. Russia, (11053/12)

Communicated: 27/06/2017
Lodged: 20/02/2012
Date of violations: 27/10/2008
Location: Dagestan
Representative: No representative
Violation: Killing

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their sons Mr Saidgadzhi Saidgadzhiyev and Mr Gadzhimagomed Akhmedov were killed by State agents and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicants complain that prior to their death their sons were subjected to torture and that no investigation was carried out into the matter. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complain that they did not have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

 

Gasan Baysultanov v. Russia, (56120/13)

Communicated: 19/06/2017
Lodged: 24/07/2013
Date of violations: 02/11/2006
Location: Dagestan
Representative: SRJI
Violation: Killing

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that his pregnant wife, Ms Saniyat Magomedova, was killed during the special operation carried out in their house on 3 November 2006 because of a disproportionate use of lethal force by the police officers involved. He further alleged that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the killing. The applicant also complains, under Article 2 of the Convention, that he was seriously wounded during that special operation as a result of a disproportionate use of lethal force by the police officers and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the matter.

 
Cases 21 - 40 of 670