Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOLUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Kolunov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-53, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  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, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and most recently Ananyev, cited above, §§ 120-66).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30-32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).

• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in cases brought against the Russian Federation where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and by using formulaic reasoning without addressing the concrete facts of the case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 106 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko, cited above, §§ 101 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 65 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  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, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and most recently Ananyev, cited above, §§ 120-66).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  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, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and most recently Ananyev, cited above, §§ 120-66).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30-32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  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, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and most recently Ananyev, cited above, §§ 120-66).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  NOVINSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

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

  BELASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 31242/05

  VLADIMIR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21503/04

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  26436/05.
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26211/13

  SOS v. CROATIA

  As regards the domestic authorities' reliance on the gravity of charges when extending the applicant's pre-trial detention, the Court reiterates that while that may be a relevant element in the overall assessment, the need to continue deprivation of liberty cannot be assessed from a purely abstract point of view, taking into consideration only the gravity of the offence (see, for instance, Kolunov v. Russia, no. 26436/05, § 51, 9 October 2012, and cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention à raison des conditions de détention dans des maisons d'arrêt russes (voir, par exemple, Dudchenko c. Russie, no 37717/05, §§ 116-123, 7 novembre 2017, Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, §§ 36-44, 11 avril 2013, Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, §§ 34-43, 20 janvier 2005, Ananyev et autres c. Russie, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, §§ 160-166, 10 janvier 2012, Zentsov et autres c. Russie, no 35297/05, §§ 38-45, 23 octobre 2012, et Kolunov c. Russie, no 26436/05, §§ 30-38, 9 octobre 2012).

• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 42296/09

  KOVROV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications

  The Court has already found that the practice of issuing collective detention orders without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention in respect of each detainee is incompatible, in itself, with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Kolunov v. Russia, no. 26436/05, § 53, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 45392/11

  PUSHCHELENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, to the extent that the Saratov Regional Court routinely extended the authorised period of detention in respect of Mr Lysenko and his co-defendants in a collective fashion, the Court reiterates that the practice of issuing collective detention orders without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention in respect of each detainee is incompatible, in itself, with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Kolunov v. Russia, no. 26436/05, § 53, 9 October 2012, and Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 45, 14 December 2006).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 18813/06

  [ENG]

  The Court further notes that it has previously examined similar complaints lodged by the applicant's co-defendants and found a violation of their rights set out in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38-50, 2 March 2006; Lind, cited above, §§ 74-86; Kolunov v. Russia, no. 26436/05, §§ 48-58, 9 October 2012; and Zentsov and Others, cited above, §§ 56-66).
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention à raison des conditions de détention dans des maisons d'arrêt (voir, par exemple, Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, §§ 34-43, 20 janvier 2005, Ananyev et autres c. Russie, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, §§ 160-166, 10 janvier 2012, Kolunov c. Russie, no 26436/05, §§ 30-38, 9 octobre 2012, Zentsov et autres c. Russie, no 35297/05, §§ 38-45, 23 octobre 2012, Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, §§ 36-44, 11 avril 2013, et Dudchenko c. Russie, no 37717/05, §§ 116-123, 7 novembre 2017) ainsi qu'à raison des conditions de transport de détenus (voir, par exemple, Svetlana Kazmina c. Russie, no 8609/04, §§ 76-79, 2 décembre 2010, M.S. c. Russie, no 8589/08, §§ 71-77, 10 juillet 2014, Yaroslav Belousov c. Russie, nos 2653/13 et 60980/14, §§ 103-111, 4 octobre 2016, et Radzhab Magomedov c. Russie, no 20933/08, §§ 59-62, 20 décembre 2016).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

  TKACHUK c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention à raison principalement du manque d'espace individuel suffisant (voir, par exemple, Zentsov et autres c. Russie, no 35297/05, §§ 38-45, 23 octobre 2012, Kolunov c. Russie, no 26436/05, §§ 30-38, 9 octobre 2012, Ananyev et autres, précité, §§ 160-166, Karalevičius c. Lituanie, no 53254/99, § 36, 7 avril 2005, Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, § 39 et suivants, 20 janvier 2005, et Dougoz c. Grèce, no 40907/98, § 46, CEDH 2001-II).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  [ENG]

  The Court further observes that it has already found that remand centre no. IZ-77/3 was severely overpopulated at the time when the applicant was held there (see Vladimir Sokolov v. Russia, no. 31242/05, §§ 47 and 58-64, 29 March 2011, and Kolunov v. Russia, no. 26436/05, §§ 30-38, 9 October 2012, where a violation of Article 3 was found in respect of applicants held in that remand centre in 2005).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  [ENG]

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention en raison principalement du manque d'espace individuel suffisant (voir, par exemple, Dougoz c. Grèce, no 40907/98, § 46, CEDH 2001 II, Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, § 39 et suivants, 20 janvier 2005, Karalevičius c. Lituanie, no 53254/99, § 36, 7 avril 2005, Ananyev et autres, précité, §§ 160-166, Kolunov c. Russie, no 26436/05, §§ 30-38, 9 octobre 2012, et Zentsov et autres c. Russie, no 35297/05, §§ 38-45, 23 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 58811/09

  SAVIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 17512/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 35242/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 9305/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 33128/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 42080/11

  ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA