This case concerns the arrival in Italy of the applicants, unaccompanied minors seeking asylum, their placement in an adult migrant centre and the subsequent age-assessment procedure.
T.K. v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 55829/20
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention concerning the risk of death and/or ill-treatment in the event of removal to Syria,
B.A. v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 51958/20
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention concerning the risk of death and/or ill-treatment in the event of removal to Syria,
CASE OF BORISOVSKIY v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 41248/17 and 75083/17
The present case concerns the placement of the applicant in metal cages and glass cabins during the criminal trial, the length of his pre-trial detention,
CASE OF RUDYKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 55659/14 and 13 others
The case concerns different aspects of detention of the applicants convicted to life imprisonment and in particular their regular handcuffing.
CASE OF AZARSANOV AND BOROKOV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 63160/13 and 33661/14
Between 2011 and 2012 the applicants were prosecuted and convicted for different criminal offences. Their convictions were notably based on their confession statements made shortly after their de facto apprehension
CASE OF ANZINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 60757/12 and 3 others
The applicants in the present four cases complained that they had been convicted of drug-related offences which they had committed only because they had been incited to do so by agent provocateurs.
CASE OF LITVINOVICH v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 43038/11
The case originated in the application (no. 43038/11) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 62082/10 and 6 others
The applicants in the present seven cases complained that they had been convicted of bribe-related offences which they had committed only because they had been incited to do so by agent provocateurs.
Advisory opinion on the difference in treatment between landowners’ associations “having a recognised existence on the date of the creation of an approved municipal hunters’ association” and landowners’ associations set up after that date
By a decision of 15 April 2021, sent by a letter of the same date, the French Conseil d’État requested the European Court of Human Rights, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of…