{"id":177388,"date":"2022-04-12T14:15:09","date_gmt":"2022-04-12T12:15:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/about-me-and-my-cases\/"},"modified":"2025-01-28T16:12:25","modified_gmt":"2025-01-28T15:12:25","slug":"about-me","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/about-me\/","title":{"rendered":"About me"},"content":{"rendered":"\"\"\r\n

Welcome to my online office!<\/p>\r\n

My introduction to the European Court of Human Rights began in the early 2000s during my studies at Duke Law School\u2019s Institute of Transnational Law at the University of Geneva. After returning to Russia, where I had obtained my law degree in the 1990s, I received my doctoral degree in law in 2002 and subsequently carried out research and taught European Convention law at my alma mater. I also worked as a staff attorney for the American Bar Association\u2019s Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative (ABA CEELI), and then became a deputy coordinator of the US Department of State\u2019s Regional Initiative. After completing legal training at Rutgers University in the United States, I returned to Russia and, for several years, headed an NGO called the Center for Clinical Legal Education and Human Rights Protection. From 2004 onwards, we actively worked with the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\r\n

Since the early 2010s, I have been providing online legal services from my office, registered in St. Petersburg. Over this time, I have had the pleasure of working with clients from various European countries and around the world on more than 1,200 cases, and have offered consultations on several thousand matters related to the European Court of Human Rights. In recent years, I have expanded my practice to include cases against various States, individual communications (complaints) to UN committees, and requests to the Commission for the Control of Interpol\u2019s Files.<\/p>\r\n<\/a>\r\n

Below are some examples of my work with the Court.<\/p>\r\n

Expand all<\/a> Collapse all<\/a><\/p>\r\n

\r\n\r\n
<\/span>

Kirillova case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 19 September 2016<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the applicant\u2019s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the authorities having reclaimed her flat. Following proceedings before the Court, the flat was returned to the applicant<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Kostyuchenko case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 9 July 2019<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the applicant\u2019s right to a fair trial in her challenge to the termination of her judicial office.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Nigmatullin case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 4 February 2020<\/a>, the Court found that the applicant had been subjected to torture by the police and awarded him \u20ac39,700 in compensation.<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Singla case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 19 May 2020<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the applicant\u2019s right to respect for private and family life, as his stay in Russia was declared undesirable.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Bulgakov case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 23 June 2020<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression, resulting from the blocking of access to his entire website on the basis of a single prohibited item (later removed). Access was never restored. The respondent Government\u2019s written observations in this case can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Laptev case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 9 February 2021<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the right to life of the applicant\u2019s brother, who died in custody, and a failure to conduct an effective investigation. I prepared the applicant\u2019s written observations, which were signed and submitted by the applicant\u2019s representative.<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Gavrilova and Others case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 16 March 2021<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the applicants\u2019 right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as the authorities had reclaimed their land plots. The judgment is available in French only; the Court\u2019s press release is available in English<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Lazutkin case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 4 February 2020<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the rights of the applicant, who is a lawyer, in connection with searches of his home and office conducted under a law that lacked procedural safeguards to protect professional secrecy.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Gyrlian case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 9 January 2019<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the applicant\u2019s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions following the confiscation of undeclared US$90,000, the lawful origin of which was known.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Maleyev case<\/h2><\/div>
By decision of 4 December 2019<\/a>, the Court struck the case out of the list because, after communication of the application to the respondent Government, they acknowledged a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights regarding his conditions of detention and offered him \u20ac7,000 in compensation.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Lashun case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 7 December 2021<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the applicant\u2019s presumption of innocence.<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Skvortsov case<\/h2><\/div>
By decision of 7 October 2014<\/a>, the Court struck the case out of the list, as the respondent Government, following communication of the application, acknowledged a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights due to his excessive and unjustified detention, and offered him \u20ac7,000 in compensation.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)
(prepared using the pre-2014 application form)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Reikhert case<\/h2><\/div>
By decision of 22 February 2022<\/a>, the Court struck the case out of the list on the ground that a new remedy had been created in Russia which the applicant could have used, even though it was introduced after she had lodged her application.<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in English)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Neznakhin case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 6 April 2023<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the applicant\u2019s freedom of peaceful assembly, as he was treated as a participant in a march, declared illegal, in support of a journalist.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Nikolaev case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns the prolonged non-enforcement of a court judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 28 January 2019.<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Sablina case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns the prolonged failure of the authorities to assist in the enforcement of a court judgment in the applicant\u2019s favour. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 23 February 2018.<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Safonov case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the right to a fair trial, due to the use of the applicant\u2019s statements against him, obtained without offering him the assistance of a defence lawyer and without informing him of his right to remain silent. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 30 November 2020.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in English)<\/p>\r\n

Claims for just satisfaction<\/a>
(in Russian)<\/p>\r\n

Claims for just satisfaction<\/a>
(in English)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Kuznetsov case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the right to a fair trial, due to the use of the applicant\u2019s statements against him, obtained without giving him the opportunity to have legal counsel. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 30 November 2020.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)<\/p>\r\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Stupko case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the applicant\u2019s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, following the quashing of a final judgment in his favour through acceptance of a repeated appeal lodged out of time by the opposing party with the President of the Supreme Court, without reference to any fundamental violations. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 28 September 2018.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Aleksandrov case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, by imposing the burden of responsibility on the applicant, as a real-estate purchaser, for errors made by the authorities in recording inaccurate data in the real-estate register and in allowing multiple transactions involving that property before he acquired it. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 4 October 2021.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

\u2018Volya\u2019 political party case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns violations arising from the de facto inability to defend itself against accusations of extremism, which resulted in the party\u2019s dissolution. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 21 October 2021.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Sivtsev case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the principle of legal certainty caused by the unforeseeable reopening of the limitation period after the Russian authorities adopted a law \u2018on the admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation,\u2019 enabling them to bring a claim against the applicant. This led to a judgment depriving him of his property. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 15 December 2021.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n

<\/span>

Menshikov case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights when he was placed in a metal cage in the courtroom. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 2 March 2023.<\/p>\r\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Welcome to my online office! My introduction to the European Court of Human Rights began in the early 2000s during my studies at Duke Law School\u2019s Institute of Transnational Law at the University of...","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":208846,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177388","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/177388","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=177388"}],"version-history":[{"count":40,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/177388\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":222824,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/177388\/revisions\/222824"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/208846"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}