ECHR building
ECHR building

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is an international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) in 1959. It considers applications alleging that a contracting state has infringed one or more rights set out in the Convention and its protocols. The Court is based in Strasbourg, France.

An application can be lodged by an individual, a group of individuals or a non-governmental organization. All 47 member states of the Council of Europe are contracting parties to the Convention.

Cases can be brought directly by individuals. It is sufficient to send the Court a duly completed application form with the requisite documents. There are no fees for proceedings before the Court.

The assistance of a lawyer is not necessary at the start of the proceedings. The assistance of a lawyer becomes necessary, however, once the Court has given notice of the case to the respondent Government for their observations. Legal aid may be granted to applicants, if necessary, from that stage in the proceedings. An applicant may be represented by a lawyer qualified to practice in one of the States Parties to the Convention and who speaks working languages of the Court (English or French).

If you decide to apply to the Court, please ensure that your application complies with Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, which sets out the information and documents that must be provided; otherwise your application will not even be examined.

Cases can only be brought to the Court after domestic remedies have been exhausted. Applications must also be lodged with the Court within four months following the last judicial decision in the case on domestic level (ex. judgment by the highest court). The applicant must be, personally and directly, a victim of a violation.

When the Court finds violations against a State and observes that the applicant has sustained damage, it awards the applicant just satisfaction, that is to say a sum of money to compensate for that damage. Judgments finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers ensures that any sum awarded by the Court is actually paid to the applicant.

In the event of extradition proceedings from the States of the European Union

The law firm of Yegor Boychenko may render you services of preparing the expert reports about the violations of the national law and human rights and freedoms in the criminal proceedings in the State of Eastern Europe requesting extradition.


List of the successful cases of attorney-at-law Yegor BOYCHENKO before the European Court of Human Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)

Successful cases against Russia:


Vitaliy Sokolov v. Russia, No. 45235/16:
Violation of Article 3 of the Convention (ill-treatment), awarded compensation – more than 25000 euro.

Visit Malsagov v. Russia, No. 59079/17:
Violation of Article 1 Protocol No.1 to the Convention (protection of property), awarded compensation – more than 240 000 euro.

Aleksandr Osipov v. Russia, No. 75180/17:
Violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (length of detention), awarded compensation – 2000 euro.

Yevgeniy Danilov v. Russia, No. 82406/17:
Friendly-settlement as concerns inadequate conditions of detention, payment by the respondent state of the compensation in the amount of 13 000 euro.

Olga Litvinenko v. Russia, No. 84447/17:
Violation of Article 1 Protocol No.1 to the Convention (protection of property).

Aslanbek Aldamov v. Russia, No. 10299/18:
Violation of Article 1 Protocol No.1 to the Convention (protection of property), awarded compensation – more than 260 000 euro.

Successful cases against Ukraine:


Vira Dovzhenko v. Ukraine, No. 26646/07:
Violation of Article 1 Protocol No.1 to the Convention (protection of property), awarded compensation – 4000 euro.

Sergey Smirnov v. Ukraine, No. 36853/09:
Violations of Article 3 and 13 (lack of adequate medical treatment in detention) and Article 8 (monitoring of correspondence by the prison administration) of the Convention, awarded compensation – 4000 euro.

Ivan Kanna v. Ukraine, No. 24751/10:
Violation of Article 5 § 1 and § 3 of the Convention (unlawfulness and length of detention), awarded compensation – 6000 euro.

Panova and others v. Ukraine, Nos. 28519/10, 52630/10, 52697/10, 57473/10:
Violation of Article 8 of the Convention (eviction of the applicants from their dwellings), awarded compensation – 4500 euro to each applicant.

Alla Shebaldina v. Ukraine, No. 75792/11:
Violation of Article 1 Protocol No.1 to the Convention (protection of property).

Ivan Leonidov v. Ukraine, No. 2064/12:
Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (access to justice).

Igor Karapas v. Ukraine, No. 54575/12:
Violation of 5 § 1 and § 5 of the Convention (unlawfulness of detention and lack of compensation at the national level).

Boris Boroday v. Ukraine, No. 44274/13:
Violation of Article 3 of the Convention (lack of adequate medical treatment in detention), awarded compensation – 7000 euro.

Valentina Tretyakova v. Ukraine, No. 63126/13:
Violation of Article 2 of the Convention (medical negligence), awarded compensation – 6000 euro.

Yuriy Lavrik v. Ukraine, No. 63542/13:
Violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (length of detention).

Oleg Stetsov v. Ukraine, No. 5170/15:
Violation of Article 2 Protocol No.4 to the Convention (freedom of movement).

Borys Parinov v. Ukraine, No. 48398/17:
Violation s of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention (length of bankruptcy proceedings).

Vadym Izotov v. Ukraine, No. 27733/21:
Violation s of Articles 5 § 4 and § 5 (speediness of the review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention and lack of compensation at the national level).

Andriy Terentyev v. Ukraine, No. 9077/23:
Violation s of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention (length of criminal proceedings), awarded compensation – 7800 euro.

Successful cases against other respondent states:


Iurii Khokhlov v. Cyprus, No. 53114/20:
The ECHR ruled that the applicant’s detention pending his extradition to the Russian Federation and the review of its lawfulness failed to comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 and § 4 in view of its length and the length of its review by the Cypriot courts. The ECHR awarded the applicant non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 26 000 euro.

Khachapuridze and Khachidze v. Georgia, No. 59464/21:
The ECHR found violation s of Article 6 § 1 in its criminal aspect and Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention in that the domestic courts failed to give sufficient reasons for their refusal to hear a main defence witness; the courts relied on statements of absent witnesses, whose evidence carried significant weight, without sufficient counterbalancing factors to compensate for handicaps caused to the defence; the domestic courts gave insufficient reasons for complete exclusion from remaining trial of applicants for allegedly disorderly conduct.