Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ALEKSANDRA DMITRIYEVA v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 8, Art. 13+5, Art. 13, Art. 13+8 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13+5 Violation of Art. 13+8 (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (11) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
The question of whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 119-20, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the absence of any such intention cannot exclude a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 45, 2 June 2005, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
The minimum standards of "effectiveness" defined by the Court's case-law also require that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208-13, 24 February 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III). - EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01
NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the absence of any such intention cannot exclude a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 45, 2 June 2005, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00
MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
The minimum standards of "effectiveness" defined by the Court's case-law also require that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208-13, 24 February 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III). - EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 29787/03
RIAD ET IDIAB c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
In connection with its findings above, the Court would emphasise that it considers it unacceptable for a person to be detained in conditions in which no provision is made for meeting his or her basic needs (see Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 106, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)). - EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28940/95
FOKA v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
In view of the above circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant's arrest and subsequent detention constituted a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, § 57, ECHR 2010-... (extracts), and Foka v. Turkey, no. 28940/95, §§ 74-79, 24 June 2008). - EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
The Court further reiterates that, being sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, it is nevertheless not bound by the findings of domestic courts and may depart from them where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, by contrast, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B; see also Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002, and Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, §§ 33 and 34, Series A no. 235-B,). - EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05
The Court further reiterates that, being sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, it is nevertheless not bound by the findings of domestic courts and may depart from them where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, by contrast, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B; see also Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002, and Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, §§ 33 and 34, Series A no. 235-B,). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04
KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE
Selon la jurisprudence de la Cour, les mots « prévue par la loi'figurant à l'article 8 § 2 requièrent que la ou les mesures incriminées aient une base en droit interne (voir, par exemple, Aleksandra Dmitriyeva c. Russie, no 9390/05, §§ 104-107, 3 novembre 2011) mais visent également la qualité de la loi en question, exigeant que celle-ci soit accessible à la personne concernée et prévisible quant à ses effets (Rotaru c. Roumanie [GC], no 28341/95, § 52, CEDH 2000-V). - EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05
SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Selon la jurisprudence de la Cour, les mots « prévue par la loi'figurant à l'article 8 § 2 imposent non seulement que la ou les mesures incriminées aient une base en droit interne (voir, par exemple, Aleksandra Dmitriyeva c. Russie, no 9390/05, §§ 104-107, 3 novembre 2011), mais visent aussi la qualité de la loi en cause: ainsi, celle-ci doit être accessible au justiciable et prévisible (Rotaru c. Roumanie [GC], no 28341/95, § 52, CEDH 2000-V). - EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 37873/04
KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA
Under the Court's case-law, the expression "in accordance with the law" in Article 8 § 2 requires, among other things, that the measure in question should have some basis in domestic law (see, for example, Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, §§ 104-07, 3 November 2011), but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V).
- EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 30518/11
ALIEV v. TURKEY
Failure on the part of a Government to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-founded nature of the applicant's allegations, especially when they are backed by reliable evidence (see Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, § 77, 3 November 2011). - EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05
MASKHADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Under the Court's case-law, the expression "in accordance with the law" in Article 8 § 2 requires, among other things, that the measure or measures in question should have some basis in domestic law (see, for example, Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, §§ 104-07, 3 November 2011), but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 21885/07
KUSHTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Under the Court's case-law, the expression "in accordance with the law" in Article 8 § 2 requires, among other things, that the measure or measures in question should have some basis in domestic law (see, for example, Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, §§ 104-07, 3 November 2011), but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41040/11
IUSTIN ROBERTINO MICU v. ROMANIA
This has happened, on occasion, in cases concerning unacknowledged detention (Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 209, ECHR 2004-II), or where the State's responsibility was engaged in respect of secret detention on its territory (Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, 24 July 2014), or where the record of an arrest had been destroyed (Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, 3 November 2011). - EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1441/10
RAMAZANOVA ET ALEKSEYEV c. RUSSIE
Compte tenu de ces considérations, elle ne peut pas conclure à l'existence de l'ingérence alléguée (voir, a contrario, Aleksandra Dmitriyeva c. Russie, no 9390/05, § 103, 3 novembre 2011, et Dmitriyev c. Russie, no 13418/03, § 94, 24 janvier 2012). - EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 22089/07
ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Under the Court's case-law, the expression "in accordance with the law" in Article 8 § 2 requires, among other things, that the measure or measures in question should have some basis in domestic law (see, for example, Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, §§ 104-07, 3 November 2011), but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09
ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA
Under the Court's case-law, the expression "in accordance with the law" in Article 8 § 2 requires, among other things, that the measure or measures in question should have some basis in domestic law (see, for example, Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, §§ 104-07, 3 November 2011), but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 38552/05
ABDULAYEVA v. RUSSIA