Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NASAKIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Nasakin v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012; and Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 84, 15 May 2012), or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012), as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 36937/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012; and Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 84, 15 May 2012), or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012), as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 46661/99

  SÖYLEMEZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012; and Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 84, 15 May 2012), or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012), as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.

• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 17332/03

  LEVINTA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012; and Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 84, 15 May 2012), or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012), as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012; and Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 84, 15 May 2012), or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012), as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  Where an individual is taken into 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 (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  Where an individual is taken into 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 (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  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, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  In the Court's view, the fact that the applicant's conviction became final once upheld on appeal and he started serving a prison sentence had the effect of triggering the application of the six-month rule referred to in Article 35 § 1 in respect of the first period of his pre-trial detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 127-33, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02

  RYDZ v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4722/09

  [ENG]

  Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the ill-treatment, the Court finds that it amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 87-93, ECHR 2010; Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 51-55, 18 July 2013; and Mostipan v. Russia, no. 12042/09, §§ 58-61, 16 October 2014).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 31316/09

  [ENG]

  Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the ill-treatment, the Court finds that it amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 87-93, ECHR 2010; Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 51-55, 18 July 2013; and Mostipan v. Russia, no. 12042/09, §§ 58-61, 16 October 2014).
• EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 61510/09

  [ENG]

  At the same time, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the Court's earlier finding that the applicant's detention from 31 August to 28 September 2009 has been unlawful, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the applicant's grievances under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, for similar reasoning, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 211, ECHR 2009, and, more recently, Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, § 87, 18 July 2013).

• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 40852/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; Levinţa v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012), or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Söylemez, cited above, §§ 107 and 122-24; Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012; and Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 98-100, 18 July 2013) as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 04.07.2024 - 64304/19

  MAMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lengthy review of detention; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaints about conditions of transport; Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 73-75, 18 July 2013, as regards detention in the absence of a court order following the quashing of the conviction by a superior court; and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA

  In the Court's view, these circumstances had the effect of triggering the application of the six-month rule referred to in Article 35 § 1 in respect of the first two periods of pre-trial detention (see Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, § 83, 18 July 2013, and, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 127-33, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 731/07

  [ENG]

  Having regard to the physical and mental effects of the ill-treatment in question, the Court is satisfied that the accumulation of the acts of physical violence inflicted on the applicant on 12 March 2006 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among others, Mostipan v. Russia, no. 12042/09, §§ 58-61, 16 October 2014; Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 51-55, 18 July 2013; and Gorshchuk v. Russia, no. 31316/09, § 33, 6 October 2015).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 22727/08

  [ENG]

  The Court finds that the fact that the applicant's first conviction became final once upheld on appeal and he started serving a prison sentence had the effect of triggering the application of the six-month rule (see Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 81 - 85, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 14129/11

  INAN v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the normal practice of the Convention organs has been, where a case has been communicated to the respondent Government, not to declare the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, unless this matter has been raised by the Government in their observations (see Ergi v. Turkey, no. 23818/94, Commission decision of 2 March 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) 80, p. 157, at p. 160; Dobrev v. Bulgaria, no. 55389/00, § 112, 10 August 2006; and Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, § 90, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR - 12004/16 (anhängig)

  DADAYEV v. RUSSIA

  (a) Was his right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself respected, having regard to the fact that the confession statements made by the applicant on 7 and 8 March 2015 were disclosed to the jury (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 162-68, ECHR 2010, and Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 95-100, 18 July 2013)?.
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 37311/08

  PETROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 53373/14 (anhängig)

  ZHDAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 59989/11

  YEFIMENKO v. RUSSIA