Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (27)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  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 v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006).

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006; and Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, pp.

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  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, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 38; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  It was not disputed that the applicant was "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  The lack of a proper record of the applicant's detention is therefore sufficient for the Court to find that his confinement for several hours on 5 December 1999 was in breach of domestic law and contrary to the requirements implicit in Article 5 of the Convention for the proper recording of deprivations of liberty (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV, and Menesheva, cited above, §§ 87-89).
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  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 v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  Consideration was given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 67) and to the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 38; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 36743/97

  GRAUSLYS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01

  KOVAL v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 39615/98

  MOTIERE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04

  GRIDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 27715/95

  BERLINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 77092/01

  NECDET BULUT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …
• EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94

  ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 58312/00

  TRYKHLIB v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 26973/95

  YÖYLER v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  In view of the above, the Court finds that this period constituted unrecorded and unacknowledged detention, which, in the Court's constant view, is a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a most grave violation of that provision (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva, cited above, § 87; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 73, 2 October 2008; and Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, §§ 71-72, 4 November 2010; see also Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports 1998-III, and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 24271/03

  GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court recognises that the investigation is still pending but, considering its length so far and the very serious shortcomings identified above, the Court does not consider that the applicant should have waited for completion of the investigation before bringing his complaint to the Court (see Angelova and Iliev, cited above, § 103; Mikheyev, cited above, § 121; Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, § 45, 2 October 2008; and Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 57, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 36552/05

  ZAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Pour illustrer ce point, le requérant cite de nombreux arrêts rendus par la Cour à ce sujet (Akoulinine et Babitch c. Russie, no 5742/02, § 52, 2 octobre 2008, Antipenkov c Russie, no 33470/03, §§ 67-69, 15 octobre 2009, Barabanchtchikov c. Russie, no 36220/02, § 61, 8 janvier 2009, Beloussov c. Russie, no 1748/02, § 55, 2 octobre 2008, Gladychev c. Russie, no 2807/04, § 64, 30 juillet 2009, Toporkov c. Russie, no 66688/01, § 53, 1er octobre 2009, et Vladimir Fedorov c. Russie, no 19223/04, § 72, 30 juillet 2009).

• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA

  The factors relevant for determining the level of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention in such cases include the seriousness involved in a violation of Article 3 and the harm suffered by the victim (see, further to the cases cited in paragraph 59 above, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 113, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 163, 26 January 2006; Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 212, 18 January 2007; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 78, 2 October 2008; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 184, 19 March 2009; Gäfgen, cited above, § 126; Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia, no. 75472/01, § 92, 16 September 2010; Kopylov, cited above, § 181; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 87, 11 December 2012; and Lyapin, cited above, § 148).
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  [ENG]

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002-IV; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008; and Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015).
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that the decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy is whether the applicant could have raised that complaint in order to obtain direct and timely redress, and not merely an indirect protection of the rights guaranteed in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, §§ 67-69, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  [ENG]

  The absence of a record of such details as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; and Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008).