Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAMARTSEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No 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 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  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, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  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, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  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, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  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, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  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, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  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, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  Lastly, the Court takes note of the legal decision which summarised the findings of the investigation (see paragraph 30) as well as the court's decisions given in the present case (see also paragraphs 32 and 33) from which it is clear that the authorities failed to address the issue of the cause of the applicant's injuries and to offer any plausible explanation in this connection (see Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 90, 24 January 2012, and Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 82, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  Lastly, the Court takes note of the legal decision which summarised the findings of the investigation (see paragraph 30) as well as the court's decisions given in the present case (see also paragraphs 32 and 33) from which it is clear that the authorities failed to address the issue of the cause of the applicant's injuries and to offer any plausible explanation in this connection (see Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 90, 24 January 2012, and Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 82, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 22867/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  Accordingly, the Court notes that the prosecutor's office did not make appropriate efforts thoroughly to verify the substance of his allegations (see, for example, Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§ 53-59, 30 October 2012).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 13418/03

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  Having regard to the above, the Court cannot but conclude that it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was ill-treated on 4-5 May 2005 (see, for example, Dmitriyev v. Russia, no. 13418/03, § 59-61, 24 January 2012, and Sharkunov and Mezentsev v. Russia, no. 75330/01, § 83-86, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 14880/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

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

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

  TKACHUK c. RUSSIE

  De surcroît, le dossier dont la Cour dispose ne démontre pas que, dans le cadre de ladite vérification, le service du procureur ait ordonné un quelconque examen médical du requérant (Zolotorev c. Russie, no 13408/07, § 52, 19 septembre 2017), qu'il ait examiné les registres des examens médicaux établis par les services médicaux des maisons d'arrêt concernées ou qu'il ait interrogé les médecins desdits services en vue de vérifier le récit des faits livré par la mère du requérant (voir, mutatis mutandis, Samartsev c. Russie, no 44283/06, § 90, 2 mai 2013), qu'il ait interrogé les employés de la maison d'arrêt prétendument impliqués dans les mauvais traitements ou qu'il ait organisé des confrontations entre ceux-ci et l'intéressé (Artyomov c. Russie, no 14146/02, § 180, 27 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  [ENG]

  43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, §§ 72-78, 17 January 2012; and Samartsev v. Russia, no. 44283/06, § 38 and §§ 106-14, 2 May 2013).
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 48435/07

  [ENG]

  Moreover, the X-ray did not reveal any pathology (see paragraphs 11 and 15 above) (contrast Samartsev v. Russia, no. 44283/06, § 86, 2 May 2013; El Masri, cited above, § 186; Gisayev v. Russia, no. 14811/04, § 108, 20 January 2011; and Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 110, 19 March 2009).
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 13408/07

  ZOLOTOREV v. RUSSIA

  La Cour considère néanmoins que, lorsque le requérant lui a soumis sa thèse, il n'a pas fourni d'explication satisfaisante quant aux incohérences constatées ci-dessus (voir, dans le même sens, Samartsev c. Russie, no 44283/06, §§ 79-85, 2 mai 2013).