{"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":"2026-06-06T23:38:18","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T21:38:18","slug":"about-me","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/about-me\/","title":{"rendered":"About me"},"content":{"rendered":"\"\"\n

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

My introduction to the European Court of Human Rights began in the early 2000s, while I was studying 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 a doctoral degree in law in 2002, and then conducted 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 later 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 and, for several years, headed the Center for Clinical Legal Education and Human Rights Protection, an NGO where, from 2004 onwards, we worked actively with the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n

Since the early 2010s, I have offered my services online as an independent legal practitioner registered in St. Petersburg. During this time, I have worked with clients from different countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world on more than 1,200 cases, and have provided 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>\n<\/a>\n

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

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

\n\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 as a result of the authorities\u2019 taking of her flat. Following proceedings before the Court, the flat was returned to the applicant<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\n<\/div><\/div>\n\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 proceedings challenging the termination of her judicial office.<\/p>\n

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

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

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\n<\/div><\/div>\n\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 because his stay in Russia had been declared undesirable.<\/p>\n

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

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\n<\/div><\/div>\n\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 item of prohibited material that was later removed, although access to the website was never restored. The respondent Government\u2019s written observations in this case can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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

<\/span>

Laptev case<\/h2><\/div>
By judgment of 9 February 2021<\/a>, the Court found a violation of the applicant\u2019s brother\u2019s right to life, as he had been found dead while in custody, and found the related investigation ineffective. I prepared the applicant\u2019s written observations, which were signed and submitted by the applicant\u2019s representative.<\/p>\n

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in Russian)\n<\/div><\/div>\n\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 a result of the authorities\u2019 taking of their land plots. The judgment is available in French only; the Court\u2019s press release is available in English<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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

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

<\/span>

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

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\n<\/div><\/div>\n\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 origin of which was known and was not unlawful.<\/p>\n

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

<\/span>

Maleyev case<\/h2><\/div>
By decision of 4 December 2019<\/a>, the Court struck the case out of its list of cases because, after the application had been communicated to the respondent Government, it acknowledged a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights on account of his conditions of detention and offered him \u20ac7,000 in compensation.<\/p>\n

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

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

<\/span>

Skvortsov case<\/h2><\/div>
By decision of 7 October 2014<\/a>, the Court struck the case out of its list of cases because, after the application had been communicated to the respondent Government, it acknowledged a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights on account of his excessive and unjustified detention and offered him \u20ac7,000 in compensation.<\/p>\n

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

<\/span>

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

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

Applicant\u2019s written observations<\/a>
(in English)\n<\/div><\/div>\n\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 had been deemed to be a participant in a march in support of a journalist that had been declared illegal.<\/p>\n

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

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

<\/span>

Sablina case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns the prolonged failure by 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>\n

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

<\/span>

Safonov case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the right to a fair trial in connection with the use against the applicant of his own statements, which were obtained without giving him the opportunity to have the assistance of defence counsel and without advising him of his right to remain silent. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 30 November 2020.<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

<\/span>

Kuznetsov case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the right to a fair trial in connection with the use against the applicant of his own statements, which were obtained without giving him the opportunity to have the assistance of defence counsel. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 30 November 2020.<\/p>\n

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

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

<\/span>

Stupko case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the applicant\u2019s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions through the quashing of a final judgment in his favour after the opposing party\u2019s repeated appeal to the President of the Supreme Court was accepted, even though it had been lodged out of time and did not refer to any fundamental violations capable of justifying the quashing. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 28 September 2018.<\/p>\n

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

<\/span>

Aleksandrov case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions because the applicant, as a purchaser of real estate, was made to bear responsibility for errors by the authorities, who had allowed inaccurate information to be entered in the State real-estate register and several transactions involving that property to be registered before the applicant acquired it. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 4 October 2021.<\/p>\n

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

<\/span>

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

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

<\/span>

Sivtsev case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the principle of legal certainty caused by the unforeseeable resumption of the limitation period after the Russian authorities enacted a law \u2018on the admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation\u2019, which allowed them to bring a claim against the applicant; when that claim was upheld, he lost his property. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 15 December 2021.<\/p>\n

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

<\/span>

Menshikov case<\/h2><\/div>
This case concerns a violation of the applicant\u2019s rights as a result of his placement in a metal cage in court. The Court communicated<\/a> the application to the respondent Government on 2 March 2023.<\/p>\n

Application<\/a>
(in Russian)\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Welcome to my online office! My introduction to the European Court of Human Rights began in the early 2000s, while I was studying at Duke Law School\u2019s Institute of Transnational Law at the University...","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":43,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/177388\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":230736,"href":"https:\/\/europeancourt.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/177388\/revisions\/230736"}],"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}]}}