Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MKHITARYAN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mkhitaryan v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts in those cases had extended the applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).

  The Court thus finds that the two periods in question cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy").

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

  Where such grounds are found to have been "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV and Suslov v. Russia, no. 2366/07, §§ 93-97, 29 May 2012).

• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  The Court reiterates in this regard that even though Article 3 does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts in those cases had extended the applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons justifying his or her continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  The Court may intervene only in situations where the rights and liberties guaranteed under the Convention have been infringed (see Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 59, ECHR 2007-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts in those cases had extended the applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 921/03

  BORDIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 46793/06

  BULDASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04

  VERBINT v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 2366/07

  SUSLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014, and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).

  While the Court doubts whether those circumstances, taken on their own, could have justified the domestic courts" finding that it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention, it is satisfied that the totality of those factors combined with other relevant grounds could have provided the domestic courts with an understanding of the pattern of the applicant's behaviour and the persistence of a risk of his absconding (see, for similar reasoning, Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 42, 18 December 2012, and Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 93, 5 February 2013).

• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014, and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).

  While the Court doubts whether those circumstances, taken on their own, could have justified the domestic courts" finding that it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention, it is satisfied that the totality of those factors combined with other relevant grounds could have provided the domestic courts with an understanding of the pattern of the applicant's behaviour and the persistence of a risk of his absconding (see, for similar reasoning, Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 42, 18 December 2012, and Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 93, 5 February 2013).

• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 80442/12

  Cécile Lecomte

  Die Beurteilung, ob dieses Mindestmaß erreicht ist, ist relativ: Sie hängt von allen Umständen des Falls ab, wie der Dauer der Behandlung, der körperlichen und mentalen Folgen und in einigen Fällen auch dem Geschlecht, Alter und Gesundheitszustand des Opfers (…siehe u.a. Kalashnikov./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 47095/99, Rdnr. 95, ECHR 2002-VI; Van der Ven, a.a.O., Rdnr. 47 und Mkhitaryan./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 46108/11, Rdnr. 70, 5. Februar 2013).

 
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  Quant à la complexité de l'affaire pénale, elle note que cet élément peut être pertinent, notamment dans des affaires concernant la criminalité organisée (voir, par exemple, Mkhitaryan c. Russie, no 46108/11, §§ 98-99, 5 février 2013, et Podeschi c. Saint-Marin, no 66357/14, §§ 147-148, 13 avril 2017).
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  KALININ v. RUSSIA

  If the applicant is still in pre-trial detention on the date of examination of his complaint by the Court, the Court is competent to examine the State's compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 in respect of the detention period up until the judgment date (see Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 89, 5 February 2013; Sahap DoÄ?an v. Turkey, no. 29361/07, § 26, 27 May 2010; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 144, 19 March 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 121, 12 March 2009).
• VG München, 17.12.2019 - M 30 K 17.45999

  Kein Anspruch auf Zuerkennung der Flüchtlingseigenschaft oder …

  Die Beurteilung, ob dieses Mindestmaß erreicht ist, ist relativ: Sie hängt von allen Umständen des Falls ab, wie der Dauer der Behandlung, der körperlichen und mentalen Folgen und in einigen Fällen auch dem Geschlecht, Alter und Gesundheitszustand des Opfers (siehe u.a. Kalashnikov ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 47095/99, Rdnr. 95, ECHR 2002-VI; Van der Ven, a.a.O., Rdnr. 47 und Mkhitaryan ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 46108/11, Rdnr. 70, 5.