Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (abuse of the right of petition) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 34 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 46468/06
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06
• EGMR - 46468/06

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (31)

• EGMR, 19.09.2002 - 62002/00

  TAMOSIUS contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  According to the Court's case-law, the search of a lawyer's office, including documents and electronic data, amounts to an interference with his "private life", "home" and "correspondence" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, §§ 70-72, 27 September 2005; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2007-...).

  The Court accepts that the domestic judge, while examining the request, was satisfied that there was reasonable ground for suspecting that the commission of a fraud had occurred and that evidence might be found at the premises to be searched (see Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).

• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  Thus, in Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002-IX) the Court examined such elements of the case as (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of the applicant.

  Furthermore, in view of the applicant's state of health and his previous conduct, the Court considers that the security risks he might have presented at that time, if any, were negligible compared to the health risks he faced (see Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, §§ 47, ECHR 2002-IX).

• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  The Court reiterates in this respect that even if Article 3 does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it always requires that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, § 79, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, (no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

  The Court reiterates that the authorities of the penitentiary institution should have kept a record of the applicant's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  As to the specific measures requested by the applicant, the Court reiterates that its judgments are essentially declaratory in nature and that, in general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], cited above; Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Brumarescu v. Romania (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 28342/95, § 20, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 23145/93

  ELÇI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  Therefore the searching of lawyers" premises should be subject to especially strict scrutiny (see Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 669, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  In his words, "by their very nature, the violations in the instant case do not leave any real choice as to the measures required to remedy it, because any continuation of the applicant's unlawful and arbitrary detention would necessarily entail a serious prolongation of the violations of Articles 3 and 5 and a breach of the respondent Government's obligation under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention to abide by the Court's judgment (Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 490, ECHR 2004-VII)." Accordingly, the applicant requested that the Court find that the Respondent Government must put an end to his arbitrary detention and secure his immediate release.
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  In his words, "by their very nature, the violations in the instant case do not leave any real choice as to the measures required to remedy it, because any continuation of the applicant's unlawful and arbitrary detention would necessarily entail a serious prolongation of the violations of Articles 3 and 5 and a breach of the respondent Government's obligation under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention to abide by the Court's judgment (Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 490, ECHR 2004-VII)." Accordingly, the applicant requested that the Court find that the Respondent Government must put an end to his arbitrary detention and secure his immediate release.
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  That conclusion was qualified in the Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia judgment (no. 36378/02, §§ 473 and 478, ECHR 2005-III), where the Court held: "The fact that the Court was able to complete its examination of the merits of [the] complaints against Georgia does not mean that the hindrance to the exercise of that right did not amount to a breach of Article 34 of the Convention".
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 41604/98

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Wohnung (Einsatz von Durchsuchungen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  The Court must finally take into account the extent of the possible repercussions on the work and the reputation of the persons affected by the search (see Camenzind v. Switzerland, 16 December 1997, § 45, Reports 1997-VIII; Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 45, ECHR 2005-IV; Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 44, ECHR 2007-...; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH, cited above, § 57; see also Van Rossem v. Belgium, no. 41872/98, §§ 45 et seq., 9 December 2000).
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 50882/99

  PETRI SALLINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  According to the Court's case-law, the search of a lawyer's office, including documents and electronic data, amounts to an interference with his "private life", "home" and "correspondence" (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29-33, Series A no. 251-B; Tamosius v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62002/00, ECHR 2002-VIII; Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, §§ 70-72, 27 September 2005; and Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria, no. 74336/01, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 74336/01

  Rechtswidrige Durchsuchung einer Anwaltskanzlei zur Erlangung elektronisch …
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)
• EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 46468/99

  MANOUSSOS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND GERMANY
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 61828/00

  SAKKOPOULOS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 25875/03

  GELFMANN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 61164/00

  DURINGER et AUTRES et GRUNGE contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

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

• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

  Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

  Sometimes the nature of the violation found may be such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required (see Assanidze, cited above, § 198; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 239, 22 December 2008; and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, §§ 85 and 88, 30 June 2009).
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  As the Court's judgments are essentially declaratory, the respondent State remains free, subject to the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 238, 22 December 2008).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Sejdovic, cited above, § 119; and Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 238, 22 December 2008).

 
• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 42750/09

  Spanien muss Eta-Attentäterin freilassen

  In other exceptional cases, the nature of the violation found may be such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it and the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 202-203, ECHR 2004-II; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, §§ 239-240, 22 December 2008; and Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, §§ 176-177, 22 April 2010).

  Nor, in my view, can any support be derived from the cases of Aleksanyan v. Russia (no. 46468/06, §§ 239-240, 22 December 2008) and Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 40984/07, §§ 175-177, 22 April 2001), cited in the present judgment (at paragraph 138 in fine), where the detention in question was characterised as "unacceptable", in the first case as "not serv[ing] any meaningful purpose under Article 5" and in the second as being the consequence of criminal convictions in relation to which "there existed no justification for imposing prison sentences".

• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  In certain cases, the nature of the violation found may be such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it and the Court may decide to indicate a specific measure (see, for example, Assanidze, cited above, §§ 202 and 203; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 240, 22 December 2008; and Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, §§ 176 and 177, 22 April 2010).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

  Nevertheless, where the nature of the violation found is such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it, the Court may decide to indicate only one individual measure, as it did in the cases of Assanidze (cited above, §§ 202-03); Ilascu and Others (cited above, § 490); Aleksanyan v. Russia (no. 46468/06, §§ 239-40, 22 December 2008); Fatullayev (cited above, §§ 176-77); and Del Río Prada v. Spain ([GC], no. 42750/09, §§ 138-39, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation (see Paladi, cited above, §§ 92-106; and Aleksanyan v Russia, no. 46468/06, §§ 228-232, 22 December 2008, in which the Court concluded that the Russian Government had failed to honour their commitments under Article 34 of the Convention as a result of their failure to promptly transfer a seriously ill applicant to a specialised hospital and to subject him to an examination by a mixed medical commission including doctors of his choice, in disregard of an interim measure imposed by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).

  Having referred to the general principles laid down by the Court in a number of judgments concerning the standards of medical care of detainees (among which Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, 22 December 2008; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, ECHR 2002-IX), the Government stressed that the applicant had received comprehensive medical care in detention.

  That standard should be "compatible with the human dignity" of a detainee, but should also take into account "the practical demands of imprisonment" (see Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 140, 22 December 2008).

• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA

  It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation (see Paladi, cited above, §§ 92-106; and Aleksanyan v Russia, no. 46468/06, §§ 228-232, 22 December 2008, in which the Court concluded that the Russian Government had failed to honour their commitments under Article 34 of the Convention as a result of their failure to promptly transfer a seriously ill applicant to a specialised hospital and to subject him to an examination by a mixed medical commission including doctors of his choice, in disregard of an interim measure imposed by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).

  Having referred to the general principles laid down by the Court in a number of judgments concerning the standards of medical care of detainees (Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, 22 December 2008; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; Gelfmann v. France, no. 25875/03, 14 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, ECHR 2002-IX), the Government stressed that the applicant had received and was continuing to receive comprehensive medical care in detention.

  That standard should be "compatible with the human dignity" of a detainee, but should also take into account "the practical demands of imprisonment" (see Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 140, 22 December 2008).

• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  To redress the effects of the breach of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention, the authorities must, if he so wishes, urgently transfer him to another correctional facility (see, mutatis mutandis, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 202-03, ECHR 2004-II; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 240, 22 December 2008; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 257, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 67810/10

  GROSS v. SWITZERLAND

  La Cour a dit par exemple que « sauf cas exceptionnels, une requête ne peut être rejetée comme étant abusive que si elle a été fondée sciemment sur des faits controuvés'(Knyazev c. Russie, no 25948/05, § 79, 8 novembre 2007, et Alexanian c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 117, 22 décembre 2008).
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14

  CEESAY v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 9373/15

  M.A. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 24604/04

  NIHAYET ARICI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07

  IGNATENCO v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 16031/10

  CARACET c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 45175/08

  SARA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  ARUTYUNYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  ABUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07

  NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 21188/09

  GLUHAKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  GOLUBAR v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 30958/13

  LEOTSAKOS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65567/13

  YIZHACHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  ABAKAROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 2204/11

  ANNAGI HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 2161/02

  MOLODORYCH v. UKRAINE