Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2008,63137
EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,63137)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.10.2008 - 1748/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,63137)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. Januar 2008 - 1748/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,63137)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,63137) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (6)  

  • EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

    NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

    In view of the above, the Court finds that this period constituted unrecorded and unacknowledged detention, which, in the Court's constant view, is a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a most grave violation of that provision (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva, cited above, § 87; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 73, 2 October 2008; and Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, §§ 71-72, 4 November 2010; see also Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports 1998-III, and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 24271/03

    GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court recognises that the investigation is still pending but, considering its length so far and the very serious shortcomings identified above, the Court does not consider that the applicant should have waited for completion of the investigation before bringing his complaint to the Court (see Angelova and Iliev, cited above, § 103; Mikheyev, cited above, § 121; Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, § 45, 2 October 2008; and Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 57, 2 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 36552/05

    ZAYEV c. RUSSIE

    Pour illustrer ce point, le requérant cite de nombreux arrêts rendus par la Cour à ce sujet (Akoulinine et Babitch c. Russie, no 5742/02, § 52, 2 octobre 2008, Antipenkov c Russie, no 33470/03, §§ 67-69, 15 octobre 2009, Barabanchtchikov c. Russie, no 36220/02, § 61, 8 janvier 2009, Beloussov c. Russie, no 1748/02, § 55, 2 octobre 2008, Gladychev c. Russie, no 2807/04, § 64, 30 juillet 2009, Toporkov c. Russie, no 66688/01, § 53, 1er octobre 2009, et Vladimir Fedorov c. Russie, no 19223/04, § 72, 30 juillet 2009).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

    SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA

    The factors relevant for determining the level of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention in such cases include the seriousness involved in a violation of Article 3 and the harm suffered by the victim (see, further to the cases cited in paragraph 59 above, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 113, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 163, 26 January 2006; Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 212, 18 January 2007; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 78, 2 October 2008; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 184, 19 March 2009; Gäfgen, cited above, § 126; Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia, no. 75472/01, § 92, 16 September 2010; Kopylov, cited above, § 181; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 87, 11 December 2012; and Lyapin, cited above, § 148).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

    VENSKUTÄ- v. LITHUANIA

    The absence of a record of such details as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; and Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

    SIDORIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002-IV; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008; and Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht