I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in WOMEN'S INITIATIVES SUPPORTING GROUP AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2021-12-02
  • Communication date: 2015-08-24
  • Application number(s): 73204/13
  • Country:   GEO
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 8, 8-1, 10, 10-1, 11, 11-1, 14, 17
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.606753
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


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

1.
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The individual applicants are all Georgian nationals, live in Tbilisi and are represented before the Court by Ms T. Abazadze, Ms N. Bolkvadze and Mr L. Asatiani, lawyers practising in Tbilisi.
2.
The first applicant, Women’s Initiatives Supporting Group (WISG) is a Georgian non-governmental organisation (NGO) set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Georgia.
The remaining individual applicants are either staff members of the applicant organisation or otherwise members and supporters of the LGBT community.
3.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A.
Peaceful demonstration of 17 May 2013 4.
On 24 April, 1 and 2 May 2013 the applicant organisation informed the Ministry of the Interior of its intention of holding, with NGO Identoba, a peaceful public assembly on 17 May 2013 in the centre of the capital city to mark the International Day Against Homophobia.
The planned event would represent a silent twenty minute long flash mob (“the IDAHO event”).
The organiser indicated that the event would take place at Rustaveli Avenue, on the grounds of the building formerly housing Georgian Parliament, and that some fifty people would take part in it.
In view of the violence committed by radical homophobic groups during the similar event of the preceding year, on 17 May 2012, the applicant organisation requested the Ministry to invest more time and energy in order to work out a truly efficient plan of protection of the procession from possible aggression.
5.
On 9 May 2013 the applicant organisation informed the Ministry of the Interior of serious threats disseminated on internet by various identifiable individuals.
Those threats, targeting lives and health of staff members of the applicant organisation, were aimed at dissuading the organisers from staging the IDAHO event.
6.
On 13 May 2013 reports were disseminated through various media sources that a number of ultra-conservative non-governmental organisations and clergymen were planning to hold a counter-demonstration on 17 May 2013 in order to demand prohibition of “popularisation and promotion of sexual minorities”.
The main organisers of the counter-demonstration were Mr G.G., a member of NGO Former Prisoners for Human Rights, Mr E. M., the President of NGO National Front, and a prominent clergyman of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Father J.
7.
On the same day, Mr G.G.
gave a formal notice to Tbilisi City Hall about the intention to hold “a prayer rally” at Rustaveli Avenue, on the grounds of the building formerly housing Georgian Parliament.
The notice contained information that priests and parish from various churches in Tbilisi were to participate in the rally.
8.
On 13 and 15 May 2013 senior officials from the Ministry of the Interior held meetings with the organisers of the IDAHO event, including representatives from the applicant organisation.
During those meeting, in reply to the organisers’ concerns that there existed a high risk of demonstrators’ being attacked by a large number of aggressive counter-demonstrators, the Ministry officials made formal assurances that no effort would be spared in order to guarantee the safety of the demonstrators.
The authority informed the organisers that at least 10,000 people were planning to take part in the counter-demonstration according to the latest information.
The Ministry proposed WISG, the applicant organisation, and Identoba to move the IDAHO event from the grounds of the former Parliament building a few hundred meters away, to Pushkin Square, in order to avoid direct confrontation with the opposing party at Rustaveli Avenue.
The authority assured that police manpower would be mobilised on the scene in sufficient numbers in order to have solid police cordons created between the two opposing parties.
The applicant organisation and other organisers of the IDAHO event approved the Ministry’s proposal.
B.
Assault on the applicants in Vachnadze Street on 17 May 2013 9.
Clergymen, their parish and other counter-demonstrators started assembling outside the former Parliament building already in the evening of 16 May 2013, staying overnight at Rustaveli Avenue.
By early afternoon of 17 May 2013, some 20,000 counter-demonstrators were already gathered.
10.
On 17 May 2013, at around 12:00 p.m., participants of the IDAHO event started gathering at Pushkin Square.
Watching the enormous and aggressive crowd of counter-demonstrators only a few hundred meters away, from whom they were separated by a thin cordon of police patrol officers, who were neither armed nor equipped with any other anti-riot gear, and by removable metal fences, the arriving LGBT demonstrators started having serious doubts about their security.
The counter-demonstrators started chanting homophobic insults and threats to health and life.
No any anti-riot police squads were seen around.
11.
At around 12:30 p.m. on 17 May 2013, the applicants, who were trying to reach the site of the IDAHO event at Pushkin Square through a narrow Vachnadze street, were suddenly encircled by a group of counter-demonstrators.
The counter-demonstrators had identified them as LGBT people and were proffering homophobic insults and threats.
The unarmed and unequipped police manpower present at the scene was insignificant in comparison to the angry mob.
12.
The police officers eventually managed to remove the applicants, after an active intervention of a staff member of the local United Nations office in Tbilisi, from the attackers by sneaking them into a house situated on the street, and remaining at the guard of the doors of the house until the arrival of a special minibus.
However, once the entrapped activists got into the vehicle, the counter-demonstrators, yelling “stone them all!” and “kill them all!”, surrounded it, and broke almost all the windows and front windscreen of the minibus with iron batons and stones in an attempt to pull the sheltered people out.
Eventually, after a few minutes of turmoil, the driver of the minibus managed to get through the besieging mob.
13.
All fourteen individual applicants received severe stress as a result of the violent incident in Vachnadze Street, which medical condition was later documented by medical certificates, whilst the twelfth one, Ms S. Merkviladze, also received a physical injury from a stone thrown by the angry mob which had hit her in the head, causing brain concussion.
B.
Subsequent investigation 14.
On 17 May 2013 the Ministry of the Interior launched of its own motion a general probe into the acts of violence committed during the clash between the two demonstrations.
15.
On 25 July and 20 September 2013 the applicant organisation and fifteen individual applicants, requested the Ministry of the Interior to identify and criminally prosecute individuals responsible for the violence committed against them during the IDAHO event.
No response followed from the Ministry.
16.
Between October 2013 and January 2014 the applicant organisation and all of the individual applicants regularly enquired with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office about any tangible progress in the investigation and whether victim status had been granted to them.
The prosecution authority answered on 27 December 2013, stating that there were no signs of illegality in the actions of the police during the demonstration, who, on the contrary, duly discharged their duties by preventing grave consequences which could have otherwise occurred given the disproportionately high number of the counter-demonstrators.
In addition, the prosecution authority updated the applicants on the developments of the general probe launched by the Ministry of the Interior on 17 May 2013.
17.
Thus, according to the prosecution authority’s notification and other materials available in the case file, following the initiation of the probe by the Ministry, four counter-demonstrators were sanctioned for transgression under Article 166 of the Code of Administrative Offences – minor breach of public order – and fined 100 Georgian laris (some 45 euros (EUR)) each.
Furthermore, criminal proceedings under Article 161 of the Criminal Code – illicit obstruction, perpetrated with recourse to violence, threat of violence or abuse of official capacity, of the exercise of the right to peaceful demonstration – were pending, by December 2013, before a trial court against four other counter-demonstrators, including a clergyman.
18.
The case file does not account for any other, more recent developments in the proceedings concerning the investigation of the Vachnadze incident.
COMPLAINTS 19.
Fifteen individual applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14, that the relevant domestic authorities had failed to protect them from the violent attacks perpetrated by the counter-demonstrators on 17 May 2013 and to investigate effectively the incident by establishing, in particular, the discriminatory motive of the attackers.
20.
All applicants, including the applicant organisation, complained under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14, that they had not been able to proceed with their peaceful march owing to the bias-motivated assaults on them and the inaction on the part of the police.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF YEVDOKIMOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no.
42787/11)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 December 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Yevdokimov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President, Dmitry Dedov, Andreas Zünd, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 November 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 July 2011. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms Shaysipova, a lawyer practising in Tambov. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4.
The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of his detention. He also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6.
The Government submitted a unilateral declaration whereby they acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 23 September 2010 to 21 April 2011 had not been compatible with the requirements set out in Article 3 of the Convention and that the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of that complaint about the conditions of detention in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 2,871 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The said amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. 7. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration. 8. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). 9. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning inadequate conditions of detention (see, among other numerous authorities, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012). 10. Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). 11. In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in that part (Article 37 § 1 in fine). 12. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008). 13. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out this part of the application of the list. 14. The applicant complained that he had been unable to obtain a judicial review of his detention pending expulsion. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
15.
The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention is to ensure for arrested and detained individuals the right to judicial supervision of the lawfulness of the measure to which they are thereby subjected (see, among other authorities, Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 150, 18 April 2013). When examining similar complaints against Russia, the Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the absence, at the relevant time, of any domestic legal provision which could have allowed a detainee to bring proceedings for judicial review of his or her detention pending expulsion (see, for example, Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 39-43, 17 July 2014, Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, §§ 147-50, 10 July 2014, and Akram Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, §§ 199-204, 28 May 2014). 16. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant has not had at his disposal a procedure for a judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention pending expulsion. 17. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 18. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, §§ 69-76, 26 February 2015, concerning the authorities’ failure to indicate the time-limit in respect of the detention pending expulsion). 19. The applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention. 20. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 21. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
22.
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017, Ayboğa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302/08, §§ 28-30, 21 June 2016, Doherty v. the United Kingdom, no. 76874/11, §§ 113-15, 18 February 2016, and Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 87-89, 19 January 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 1,400 in just satisfaction, as indicated in the appended table. 23. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter RoosmaActing Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
First-instance court and date of detention order
Procedural deficiencies
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
42787/11
01/07/2011
Yuriy Vladimirovich YEVDOKIMOV
1989
Shaysipova Valentina Alekseyevna
Tambov
Umetskiy District Court of the Tambov Region, 23/09/2010; until the release on 27/04/2011
lack of periodic review of detention (Khalikov v. Russia, no.
66373/13, §§ 61-66, 26 February 2015)
Art.
5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant’s detention from 23/09/2010 to 27/04/2011 for the purpose of administrative removal was based on a judicial decision which did not establish the time-limit for detention (Khalikov, cited above, §§ 69-76)
1,400

and

2,871
(under the unilateral declaration
of the Government)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF YEVDOKIMOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no.
42787/11)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 December 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Yevdokimov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President, Dmitry Dedov, Andreas Zünd, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 November 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 July 2011. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms Shaysipova, a lawyer practising in Tambov. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4.
The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of his detention. He also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6.
The Government submitted a unilateral declaration whereby they acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 23 September 2010 to 21 April 2011 had not been compatible with the requirements set out in Article 3 of the Convention and that the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of that complaint about the conditions of detention in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 2,871 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The said amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. 7. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration. 8. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). 9. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning inadequate conditions of detention (see, among other numerous authorities, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012). 10. Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). 11. In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in that part (Article 37 § 1 in fine). 12. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008). 13. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out this part of the application of the list. 14. The applicant complained that he had been unable to obtain a judicial review of his detention pending expulsion. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
15.
The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention is to ensure for arrested and detained individuals the right to judicial supervision of the lawfulness of the measure to which they are thereby subjected (see, among other authorities, Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 150, 18 April 2013). When examining similar complaints against Russia, the Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the absence, at the relevant time, of any domestic legal provision which could have allowed a detainee to bring proceedings for judicial review of his or her detention pending expulsion (see, for example, Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 39-43, 17 July 2014, Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, §§ 147-50, 10 July 2014, and Akram Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, §§ 199-204, 28 May 2014). 16. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant has not had at his disposal a procedure for a judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention pending expulsion. 17. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 18. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, §§ 69-76, 26 February 2015, concerning the authorities’ failure to indicate the time-limit in respect of the detention pending expulsion). 19. The applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention. 20. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 21. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
22.
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017, Ayboğa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302/08, §§ 28-30, 21 June 2016, Doherty v. the United Kingdom, no. 76874/11, §§ 113-15, 18 February 2016, and Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 87-89, 19 January 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 1,400 in just satisfaction, as indicated in the appended table. 23. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter RoosmaActing Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
First-instance court and date of detention order
Procedural deficiencies
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
42787/11
01/07/2011
Yuriy Vladimirovich YEVDOKIMOV
1989
Shaysipova Valentina Alekseyevna
Tambov
Umetskiy District Court of the Tambov Region, 23/09/2010; until the release on 27/04/2011
lack of periodic review of detention (Khalikov v. Russia, no.
66373/13, §§ 61-66, 26 February 2015)
Art.
5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant’s detention from 23/09/2010 to 27/04/2011 for the purpose of administrative removal was based on a judicial decision which did not establish the time-limit for detention (Khalikov, cited above, §§ 69-76)
1,400

and

2,871
(under the unilateral declaration
of the Government)

Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
First-instance court and date of detention order
Procedural deficiencies
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
42787/11
01/07/2011
Yuriy Vladimirovich YEVDOKIMOV
1989
Shaysipova Valentina Alekseyevna
Tambov
Umetskiy District Court of the Tambov Region, 23/09/2010; until the release on 27/04/2011
lack of periodic review of detention (Khalikov v. Russia, no.
66373/13, §§ 61-66, 26 February 2015)
Art.
5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant’s detention from 23/09/2010 to 27/04/2011 for the purpose of administrative removal was based on a judicial decision which did not establish the time-limit for detention (Khalikov, cited above, §§ 69-76)
1,400

and

2,871
(under the unilateral declaration
of the Government)
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.