The applicants complained of restrictions on family visits and telephone calls under Article 8 of the Convention. Under Article 3 of the Convention Mr O. Limarev also complained
CASE OF SEMENOV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 13252/16
The applicant complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF BLAGODATSKIY v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 4936/16
The applicant complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings.
CASE OF GADZHIYEV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 705/16
The applicant complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.
CASE OF KLYCHKOV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 45204/15
The case concerns secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings.
CASE OF SYROVEZHKIN AND VORONTSOV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 12549/15 and 48955/18
The applicants complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF NEFEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 11091/15 and 5 others
The applicants complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings. In applications nos. 35880/15 and 60001/16, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention.
CASE OF A.K. v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 76560/14
The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention under strict imprisonment regime.
CASE OF ANAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 60786/14 and 2 others
The applicants complained of the secret surveillance in the context of criminal proceedings. In applications nos. 56428/17 and 56484/17 the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
CASE OF DMITRIYEVA AND STYROV v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights) 38419/14 and 40301/15
The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on their right to examine witnesses.