Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,56075
EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,56075)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.05.2011 - 4512/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,56075)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Mai 2011 - 4512/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,56075)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56075) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    POPANDOPULO v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
    Although measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
    The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
    However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
    Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was in issue - measuring between three and four square metres per inmate - the Court found a violation of Article 3 since the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 98, 12 March 2009; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 94, 19 July 2007; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

    PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
    An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
    Nevertheless, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the detainee's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sharomov v. Russia, no. 8927/02, § 27, 15 January 2009; Dedovskiy and Others, cited above, § 73; Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

    MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
    An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
    The Court further reiterates that in certain cases the lack of personal space afforded to detainees in Russian remand prisons was so extreme as to justify, in its own right, a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 33 et seq., 10 May 2007; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

    MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
    The Court further reiterates that in certain cases the lack of personal space afforded to detainees in Russian remand prisons was so extreme as to justify, in its own right, a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 33 et seq., 10 May 2007; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

    MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
    The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208-13, 24 February 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III).
  • EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

    NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

    LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03

    TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

    BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00
  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

    BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

    ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

    VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

    TKACHUK c. RUSSIE

    Il indique en outre que les conditions de sa détention à la maison d'arrêt no IZ-47/1 étaient similaires à celles décrites dans les arrêts Gorbulya c. Russie (no 31535/09, 6 mars 2014), Popandopulo c. Russie (no 4512/09, 10 mai 2011) et Moskovets c. Russie (no 14370/03, 23 avril 2009).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 19816/09

    BAMBAYEV c. RUSSIE

    Il se réfère sur ce deuxième point aux montants alloués par la Cour à titre de préjudice moral dans ses arrêts concernant des cas de mauvais traitements infligés par des agents de l'État, notamment Dmitrachkov c. Russie (no 18825/02, 16 septembre 2010), Kuzmenko c. Russie (no 18541/04, 21 décembre 2010) et Popandopulo c. Russie (no 4512/09, 10 mai 2011).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht