Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GISAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 13 + 3 No violation of Art. 34 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  He relied in this connection on the case of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 202-203, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  While the civil courts have the capacity to make an independent assessment of fact, in practice, the weight attached to preliminary criminal enquiries is so important that even the most convincing evidence to the contrary furnished by a plaintiff would often be dismissed as "irrelevant" (see Chitayev and Chitayev, cited above, § 202; Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, § 160, 5 February 2009; and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 76, ECHR 2006-III).

 
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  MEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  As regards the applicant's reference to Article 5 of the Convention, the Court notes that according to its established case-law the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, absorb its requirements (see, among other authorities, Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 133, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  KHADISOV AND TSECHOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  While the civil courts have the capacity to make an independent assessment of fact, in practice, the weight attached to preliminary criminal enquiries is so important that even the most convincing evidence to the contrary furnished by a plaintiff would often be dismissed as "irrelevant" (see Chitayev and Chitayev, cited above, § 202; Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, § 160, 5 February 2009; and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 76, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy, cited above, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83-84, Reports 1997-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V, and, more recently, Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, no. 839/02, §§ 106-108, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), and Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, § 44, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  Where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-111, Series A no. 241-A, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  Where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-111, Series A no. 241-A, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  When the respondent Government have exclusive access to information able to corroborate or refute the applicant's allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Ruslan Umarov v. Russia, no. 12712/02, § 82, 3 July 2008, and Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  MATKO v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 839/02

  MASLOVA AND NALBANDOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 5742/02

  AKULININ AND BABICH v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 39630/09

  El Masri klagt gegen Mazedonien

  Eu égard à la conclusion ci-dessus et au fait que le gouvernement défendeur n'a fourni aucune explication ni aucun document propres à justifier la détention subie par le requérant du 31 décembre 2003 au 23 janvier 2004, 1a Cour conclut que, pendant cette période, le requérant a fait l'objet d'une détention non reconnue, au mépris total des garanties consacrées par l'article 5 de la Convention, ce qui constitue une violation particulièrement grave de son droit à la liberté et à la sûreté garanti par cette disposition (Gisayev c. Russie, no 14811/04, §§ 152-153, 20 janvier 2011, Kadirova et autres c. Russie, no 5432/07, §§ 127-130, 27 mars 2012, et Chitaïev c. Russie, no 59334/00, § 173, 18 janvier 2007).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 21882/09

  ISRAILOV v. RUSSIA

  Finally, the Court's case-law concerning similar allegations of unacknowledged detention and ill-treatment in Chechnya at around the same time as the events at issue in the present case contained descriptions analogous to those produced by the applicant, lending further credibility to his statements and calling for particular scrutiny to the explanations provided by the Government (see, among others, Abdulkadyrov and Dakhtayev v. Russia, no. 35061/04, § 61, 10 July 2018; Mukayev v. Russia, no. 22495/08, § 69, 14 March 2017; Gisayev v. Russia, no. 14811/04, § 137, 20 January 2011; and, mutatis mutandis, Adzhigitova and Others v. Russia, nos. 40165/07 and 2593/08, § 166, 22 June 2021).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  BOYCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  It can therefore draw inferences from the Government's conduct in respect of the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Gisayev v. Russia, no. 14811/04, § 124, 20 January 2011).