Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 5 - Right ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Khloyev v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (34)

• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation (see Paladi, cited above, §§ 92-106; and Aleksanyan v Russia, no. 46468/06, §§ 228-232, 22 December 2008, in which the Court concluded that the Russian Government had failed to honour their commitments under Article 34 of the Convention as a result of their failure to promptly transfer a seriously ill applicant to a specialised hospital and to subject him to an examination by a mixed medical commission including doctors of his choice, in disregard of an interim measure imposed by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).

  Having referred to the general principles laid down by the Court in a number of judgments concerning the standards of medical care of detainees (among which Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, 22 December 2008; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, ECHR 2002-IX), the Government stressed that the applicant had received comprehensive medical care in detention.

  That standard should be "compatible with the human dignity" of a detainee, but should also take into account "the practical demands of imprisonment" (see Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 140, 22 December 2008).

• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  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, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  MKHITARYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  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, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  Having referred to the general principles laid down by the Court in a number of judgments concerning the standards of medical care of detainees (among which Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, 22 December 2008; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, ECHR 2002-IX), the Government stressed that the applicant had received comprehensive medical care in detention.

  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)).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  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, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  However, the Court reiterates that the possibility of a severe sentence alone is not sufficient, after a certain lapse of time, to justify continued detention based on the danger of flight (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7, and B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, § 44, Series A no. 175).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  However, the Court reiterates that the possibility of a severe sentence alone is not sufficient, after a certain lapse of time, to justify continued detention based on the danger of flight (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7, and B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, § 44, Series A no. 175).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  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
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• 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, 29.05.2012 - 2366/07

  SUSLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  SOPIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 16474/03

  NAYDYON v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04

  VERBINT v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

• EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 55025/17

  AKHPOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court in application no. 51076/18, in breach of its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 63-68, 5 February 2015, and Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, §§ 216-24, 14 March 2013).
• EGMR, 02.06.2022 - 48599/17

  DIGAY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  There is nothing in the material submitted to the Court to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the courts dealing with the matter (see, for similar reasoning, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 102-10, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 38-48, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, §§ 153-56, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 12.12.2019 - 77755/16

  LUZHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).

 
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 33595/18

  PARSHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 09.09.2021 - 69168/17

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 16070/12

  CHERTENKOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).