The applicants complained of the length of their pre-trial detention and about the domestic courts’ failure to explain the reasons for inapplicability of Article 108 § 1.1
Category: European Court of Human Rights
CASE OF BRITVIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 2113/20 and 10 others
The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF KUIMOV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 1796/20
The applicant complained about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him.
CASE OF POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 56676/19 and 2 others
The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF CZESZEL v. POLAND (European Court of Human Rights) 47731/19
The present case concerns the allegedly excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand.
CASE OF MIKHALEV AND SAVINOV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 45095/19 and 28947/20
The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard.In application no. 45095/19,
CASE OF KUDRYASHOV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 41244/19
The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF CHICHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 27564/19 and 7 others
The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF SHESTAKOV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 23537/19
The applicant complainedof the inadequate conditions of his detention.
CASE OF GILEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 19504/19 and 2 others
The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard.