To secure the enforcement Ye. was temporarily restricted from leaving the territory of the Russian Federation. 11 .

    The Court reiterates that it has accepted to examine claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage for which applicants did not quantify the amount, “leaving it to the Court’s discretion” (see

    In the leading case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos.

    In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v.

    In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.

It also found that the proceedings before it leading to the adoption of its judgment of 17 September 2014 had been unfair and ruled that there had been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by

    In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v.

    In the leading case of Krasnoshapka v.

    In the leading case of Krasnoshapka v.

    In the leading case of Gerasimov and Others v.

    In the leading case of Rezmiveș and Others v.

    In the leading cases of Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006 and Sukachov v.

    In the leading cases of Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014 and Lakatos v.

    In the leading case of Dirdizov v.

    The relevant principles of the Court’s case-law concerning the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention can be found in the leading case of Karelin v.

    In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.

    In the leading case of Rezmiveș and Others v.

    In the leading case of Rezmiveș and Others v.

    In the leading cases of Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 41984/98, 9 November 2004 and Efimenko v.

He did not claim any particular sum in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage leaving the matter for the Court’s assessment. 28.