Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06 |
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 ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (17)
- EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97
WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06
The Court must first determine whether the applicant has complied with the six-month time-limit established by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as it is not open to the Court to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a Government have not made a preliminary objection based on it (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I). - EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94
TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06
Consideration has been 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, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001). - EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96
INDELICATO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06
Consideration has been 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, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06
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, 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, 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, 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, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06
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-XV (extracts); Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX). - 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, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03
TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93
MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
- 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, 19.09.2017 - 13408/07
ZOLOTOREV c. RUSSIE
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).