On 18 September 2017 the Prikubanskiy District Court in Krasnodar fined the applicant, who was married to a Russian national, 2,000 roubles (about 30 euros) for overstaying the term of authorised stay in Russia
CASE OF BURIYEV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 42874/18
The case concerns the applicant’s deportation to Tajikistan despite the interim measure being indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
CASE OF RAKHMONOVY v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 296/18
The first applicant lived in Russia since December 2013, when he married the second applicant, with whom he has two minor children. The second applicant and the applicants’ children are Russian nationals. The applicants’ family lived in Perm.
CASE OF CHIRIKOV AND NEKRASOV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 47942/17 and 58664/17
On 20 December 2016, at the anniversary of the Soviet security service – All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (Cheka) – the applicants, political activists, made an installation “A new Chekist[1]”.
CASE OF A.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 12120/20 and 2 others
The applicants are Syrian nationals and complain that they would face a real risk of being subjected to death or ill‑treatment in the event of their removal to Syria.
CASE OF N.K. v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 45761/18
The case concerns removal of the applicant to Tajikistan, in breach of an interim measure issued by the Court, and the conditions and lawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending removal. Articles 3, 5 and 34
CASE OF VOOL AND TOOMIK v. ESTONIA (European Court of Human Rights) 7613/18 and 12222/18
The case concerns a statutory ban on remand prisoners receiving long-term family visits, despite such visits being generally authorised for convicted prisoners.
CASE OF STARKEVIČ v. LITHUANIA (European Court of Human Rights) 7512/18
The case mainly concerns the applicant’s complaints about the right to a fair hearing and right to respect for his private life on account of the use of information obtained during a criminal investigation in subsequent
CASE OF LANIAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA (European Court of Human Rights) 48309/19
The applicant is a convicted prisoner who is nearly blind. He complained that, in view of his visual impairment, his detention was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.
CASE OF MICKOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA (European Court of Human Rights) 39107/18 and 39726/18
The case concerns the alleged interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the temporary suspension of his bailiff practice’s activities