39717/21 Mariya Nikolayevna KOSHELEVA against Russia and 11 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications

xa0; Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport   17/09/2018 - 1,000   7446/18 26/01/2018 Ivan Vasilyevich Shiryayev 25/08/1986 Kovaleva

The authorities’ failure to comply with those requirements, in the Court’s view, led to it finding a violation of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Korneyeva v.

February 2006   9). 9 August 2005 10). 20 December 2002   1). 2,085 2). 1,185 3). 1,860 4). 1,890 5). 1,200 6). 1,815   7). 675   8). 960 9). 1,050   10). 1,515 22. 21577/09 KOROLEVA

la violation d’un droit, quelle que soit sa réalité d’un point de vue strictement juridique, doit atteindre un seuil minimum de gravité pour justifier un examen par une juridiction internationale ( Korolev

  Korolev c. Russie (n° 2) (n° 5447/03) Le requérant, Vladimir Korolev, est un ressortissant russe né en 1954 et résidant à Orenburg (Russie).

  L a Cour renvoie aux principes développés dans sa jurisprudence concernant le critère d’absence de préjudice important ( Korolev c. Russie (déc.), n o 25551/05, CEDH 2010, Giusti c.

Russia , no. 3932/02, §   27, 26 May 2009; and Korolev v.   Russia (no.   2) , no. 5447/03, §   34, 1   April 2010, with further references. 7.

Tyunyayeva, a lawyer practising in Korolev. 3.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.

s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 38112/04 by Petr Vasilyevich KOROLEV

Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010, and Korolev v.   Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010).

need to clarify the States’ obligations under the Convention or to induce the respondent State to resolve a structural deficiency affecting other persons in the same position as the applicant (see Korolev

  54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 84-138, 10 April 2018, as regards unlawful deprivation of liberty, and   Korneyeva v.

que la question des mesures générales requises en réponse aux défaillances constatées par la Cour dans les affaires en l’espèce continue d’être examinée dans le cadre du groupe d’affaires Sivova et Koleva

domestic judgment in a private person’s favour should be executed by the administration, in situations in which the initially due assets are no longer available, is entirely taken up in the Sivova and Koleva

  54381/08 and 5   others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.

  36659/04, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1   July   2010; and Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22   February   2011).

22 May 2003 / RUB 153,000 in the main debt and RUB 38,566 in interest   Non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies     33056/09 17/04/2009 Andrey Olegovich MOSKVIN   06/09/1959 Korolev

  36659/04, §§   29-30, 1 June 2010; Korolev v. Russia (dec), no.   25551/05 , 1 July 2010; and Rinck v. France (dec.), no.   18774/09, 19   October 2010).