Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 6-3-c No violation of Art. 6-3-b Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 63378/00
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

Wird zitiert von ... (89)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  Nevertheless, under this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or handlings of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  In such circumstances, the Court would usually make no award (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 67-68, ECHR 2003-X, Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, §§ 51-52, 23 October 2003).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  The competent national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene only if a failure by legal-aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 65).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  However, they can override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B, § 29).
• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  CAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  The provision is violated only if this is made impossible (see Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, § 53).

• BGH, 07.02.2023 - 3 StR 483/21

  Antrag auf Aussetzung des Revisionsverfahrens (ausreichende Verteidigung); …

  Diese hat die Angeklagte selbst ausgewählt, so dass ihr durch § 142 Abs. 5 StPO und Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c EMRK gewährleistetes Bezeichnungs- beziehungsweise Wahlrecht (vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 20. Januar 2005 - 63378/00, Rn. 66;… vom 14. Januar 2003 - 26891/95, Rn. 54; BVerfG, Beschluss vom 25. September 2001 - 2 BvR 1152/01, NJW 2001, 3695, 3696; BGH, Beschluss vom 15. Januar 2003 - 5 StR 251/02, BGHSt 48, 170, 172 f.;… MüKoStPO/Kämpfer/Travers, 2. Aufl., § 142 Rn. 24 f.;… BeckOK StPO/Krawczyk, 46. Ed., § 142 Rn. 28;… Meyer-Goßner/ Schmitt, StPO, 65. Aufl., § 142 Rn. 39; BT-Drucks. 19/13829 S. 42 f.) nicht tangiert ist.
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 20877/04

  TESTA v. CROATIA

  m during nine months of his detention (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court previously found it necessary, in rare cases, to make a monetary award in respect of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made or where the claim was belated, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the cases, for instance the absolute or fundamental character of the right or freedom violated (see, in relation to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008; in relation to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation or appalling conditions of detention, Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in relation to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).

  [69] See, for example, Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 50, 7 June 2007; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Boordin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012, which all concerned violations of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.

 
• EGMR, 12.05.2017 - 21980/04

  SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE

  This Court has consistently held that the national authorities must have regard to the defendant's wishes as to his or her choice of legal representation, but may override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Dvorksi, cited above, § 79; see also Meftah and Others v. France [GC], no. 32911/96 and two others, § 45, ECHR 2002-VII; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 66, 20 January 2005; Klimentyev, cited above, § 116; Vitan v. Romania, no. 42084/02, § 59, 25 March 2008; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 98, 1 April 2010; Zagorodniy v. Ukraine, no. 27004/06, § 52, 24 November 2011; and Martin, cited above, § 90).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  m during over 9 months of his detention (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  In those cases applicants usually disposed of less than three sq.m of personal space (see, for example, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

  GULIYEV v. RUSSIA

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which detained applicants usually disposed of less than three and a half square metres of personal space it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify, in its own right, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 37-38, 7 June 2007; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 36-38, 10 May 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44, 16 June 2005, among others).

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01

  KOSITSYN v. RUSSIA

  This same prison appeared in the case of Mayzit v. Russia, where the Court found a violation of Article 3 on account of the detention conditions, and, in particular, overcrowding (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 34-43, 20 January 2005.).

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see 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; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  Since this right is of absolute character, the Court finds it possible to award the applicant 5, 000 euros (EUR) by way of non-pecuniary damage (compare Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 87-88, 20 January 2005), plus any tax that may be chargeable.

• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, in particular, Mamedova, cited above, § 62 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; 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, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06

  DOLENEC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO ET BORISOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 22893/05

  RODIC ET AUTRES c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02

  Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01

  KOVAL v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

  GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 46793/06

  BULDASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  GUBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  KOLUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04

  ZAKHARKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 921/03

  BORDIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

  GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  SAMARTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  MANULIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05

  ZUYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 48562/06

  KULIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  MITROKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09

  POPANDOPULO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04

  ROMOKHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  VLADIMIR KRIVONOSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  NEDAYBORSHCH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05

  VELIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 58939/00

  KOUZMIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03

  GENERALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 22/03

  GRIGORYEVSKIKH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 6954/02

  MALTABAR AND MALTABAR v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02

  STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 67542/01

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02

  MIRONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  SERGEYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 591/07

  YEPISHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  LONGIN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 918/02

  SOLOVYEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04

  GELD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1066/05

  DOROGAYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 29464/03

  AREFYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 13173/02

  MUKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02

  GUBKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 11982/02

  NOVINSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  BELASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 63955/00

  SUKHOVOY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 37810/03

  BAGEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 23185/03

  MAKSIM PETROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

  CHUDUN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 20326/04

  VADIM KOVALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  ROMAN KARASEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14797/02

  ALEKSANDR MATVEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 23939/02

  SHCHERBAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 9807/02

  OVCHINNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21503/04

  VLADIMIR KOZLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 43589/02

  SALAKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 4871/03

  SKOROBOGATYKH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 17679/03

  BUZHINAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16264/05

  VASILIY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 19936/04

  VALERIY LOPATA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 25432/05

  SKACHKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  GOROSHCHENYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 14850/03

  MATYUSH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  SUDARKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 67086/01

  KOROBOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 21947/16

  LILIAN ERHAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 4176/03

  DANILIN v. RUSSIA