36659/04, 1   June 2010, and Korolev , cited above).

Ms Koroleva and Ms Sheveleva were placed in a similar cell. The cells had no toilets.

(See also Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no.   25551/05 , 1   July 2010, Information Note no.

The severity of a violation should be assessed, taking account of both the applicant’s subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Korolev (dec.), cited above).

that the general measures required in response to the other violations found in some of these cases are or were examined by the Committee in the cases or groups of Klyakhin, Kamaliyevy, Ponushkov, Kosheleva

The severity of a violation should be assessed taking into account both the applicant’s subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no.

  36659/04, 1   June 2010, and Korolev , cited above).

In the case of Korolev v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   L. Loucaides, President,   Mr   A.

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.

Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Korneyeva v.

text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Note d’information sur la jurisprudence de la Cour N o 132 Juillet 2010 Korolev

most relevant provisions concerning restitution and compensation in lieu thereof, and the domestic courts’ relevant practice, have been summarised in the Court’s judgments in the case of Sivova and Koleva

Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region None None   12821/15* 17/02/2015 Sergey Nikolayevich KALININ 03/07/1971 IK-56, Lozvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region None None   47668/15* 18/09/2015 Nikolay Valentinovich KOROLEV

The severity of a violation should be assessed taking into account both the applicant’s subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Korolev v.

    À cet égard, la Cour rappelle les principes récemment développés dans sa jurisprudence concernant ce nouveau critère de recevabilité ( Korolev c.

  330‑ ФЗ differed substantially from supervisory review under the Code of Commercial Procedure (which the Court had recently ruled did constitute an effective remedy – see Kovaleva and Others v.

friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Rozita Gomol, is a Serbian and Slovenian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Koceljeva

Ukraine , no. 6778/05, ECHR 2005-XI, Information Note no. 79, and, on the question of the effectiveness of the new remedy for admissibility purposes, Kovaleva and Others v.

margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120 June 2009 Kovaleva