I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in LITVINOV v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2017-09-07
  • Communication date: 2016-12-01
  • Application number(s): 25038/14
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-c, 5-3
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.641561
  • Prediction: No violation

  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Aleksey Veniaminovich Litvinov, is a Russian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Sakhalin.
He is represented before the Court by Mr Ye.
Yefimchuk, a lawyer practising in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.
On 3 June 2011 the applicant was arrested on drug-related charges and placed in custody.
On 28 July and 28 October 2011 and 16 March, 31 May and 18 September 2012 the Sakhalin courts granted extensions of the authorised detention period for a total duration of eighteen months.
On 3 November 2012 the applicant was first granted access to the case file.
On 30 November and 20 December 2012 and 20 March, 18 June, 19 September and 18 December 2013 the Sakhalin Regional Court granted repeated extension of the applicant’s detention for the purpose of allowing the investigation to present the case file to the defendants.
Each time the court referred to the gravity of the charges, the applicant’s history of drug use and the fact that he was single.
In the period from 12 April to 3 September 2013 no access to the case-file was provided.
On 13 January 2014 the Sakhalin Regional Court upheld on appeal the most recent extension order of 18 December 2013.
On 14 March 2014 a judge of that court refused the applicant leave to appeal to the cassation instance.

Judgment