Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MITROKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  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; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  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; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  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; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).

• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  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; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  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; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  Although measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element, 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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  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, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  The Court reiterates that, irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise their custodial system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006, and Benediktov, cited above, § 37).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  The Court has examined and dismissed them, finding the said remedies ineffective (see, for example, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 76-91, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

  GULIYEV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09

  GORBULYA v. RUSSIA

  Their departure to the colony being definitive at the material time and their subsequent return to the same prison being a mere happenstance, the Court reached the conclusion that their transfer marked the end of the situation complained about and that the six-month period should run from the day they left the prison (see Mitrokhin v. Russia, no. 35648/04, § 36, 24 January 2012, and Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, § 30, 26 March 2013).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 23190/17

  PETRESCU c. PORTUGAL et 4 autres affaires

  Aux yeux de la Cour, les faits de l'espèce s'analysent donc en « une situation continue'justifiant un examen de la totalité de la période de détention dont se plaint le requérant (voir Haghilo c. Chypre, no 47920/12, §§ 147-150, 26 mars 2019 et a contrario, Maltabar et Maltabar c. Russie, no 6954/02, § 83, 29 janvier 2009, Ananyev et autres, précité, § 76 et Mitrokhin c. Russie, no 35648/04, § 38, 24 janvier 2012, ), d'autant plus que la période de détention globale concerne une seule et même peine d'emprisonnement (paragraphe 7 ci-dessus).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 40146/11

  KANAKIS c. GRECE

  35648/04, § 38, 24 Ιαν&omikron;υαρί&omikron;υ 2012).

• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 67482/10

  SOROKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Government referred to the judgment in the case of Mitrokhin v. Russia (no. 35648/04, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 550/17

  FRAGGOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  La Cour considère qu'il n'existe aucune circonstance particulière lui permettant de considérer que la détention du requérant dans la prison de Diavata et sa détention ultérieure dans locaux du ΚΕΘΕΑ constituent une « situation continue'justifiant un examen de la totalité de la période de détention dont se plaint le requérant (Novinskiy c. Russie (déc.), no 11982/02, § 96, 6 décembre 2007, Maltabar et Maltabar c. Russie, no 6954/02, § 83, 29 janvier 2009, Ananyev et autres, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, § 76, 10 janvier 2012, et Mitrokhin c. Russie, no 35648/04, § 38, 24 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 40044/12

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Their departure to the colony being definitive at the material time and their subsequent return to the same prison being a mere happenstance, the Court reached the conclusion that their transfer marked the end of the situation complained about (see Mitrokhin v. Russia, no. 35648/04, § 36, 24 January 2012, and Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, § 30, 26 March 2013).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 26073/09

  KARBYSHEV v. RUSSIA

  The Government referred to the judgment in the case of Mitrokhin v. Russia (no. 35648/04, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 43639/12

  KHANH v. CYPRUS

  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, among many other authorities, Mela v. Russia, no. 34044/08, § 62, 23 October 2014; Mitrokhin v. Russia, no. 35648/04, § 51, 24 January 2012; and Grigoryevskikh v. Russia, no. 22/03, § 59, 9 April 2009; see also, for the burden of proof in such cases, Muršić, cited above, § 128).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 66414/11

  BERGER v. RUSSIA

  The Government referred to the judgment in the case of Mitrokhin v. Russia (no. 35648/04, 24 January 2012).