Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LIND v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 8 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  Where such grounds were "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).

  In my dissenting opinion in the case of Dolgova v. Russia (no. 11886/05, 2 March 2006) I referred to the judgment in the case of Labita v. Italy ([GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV) to underline that "[w]hether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features" (Labita, § 152).

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 61 et seq., 1 June 2006; 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; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  The award should not exceed the amount awarded by the Court in the Kalashnikov case (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  The applicant also submitted that the Court had already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in another application brought by the applicant's co-defendant (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, 2 March 2006).

  In my dissenting opinion in the case of Dolgova v. Russia (no. 11886/05, 2 March 2006) I referred to the judgment in the case of Labita v. Italy ([GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV) to underline that "[w]hether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features" (Labita, § 152).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  The Court reiterates that any interference with an individual's right to respect for his private and family life will constitute a breach of Article 8, unless it was "in accordance with the law", pursued a legitimate aim or aims under paragraph 2, and was "necessary in a democratic society" in the sense that it was proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 45, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the 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, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  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 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 61 et seq., 1 June 2006; 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; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 61 et seq., 1 June 2006; 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; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 61 et seq., 1 June 2006; 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; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  MANULIN v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law provisions governing conditions and length of pre-trial detention, see the cases of Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 26-31, 2 March 2006, and Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 47-52, 6 December 2007.

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 79-85, 12 June 2008; Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 120-166; Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, § 28-33, 1 March 2012; Kolunov, cited above, §§ 30-38; and Zentsov and Others, cited above, §§ 38-45).

  The Court further notes that it has previously examined similar complaints lodged by the applicant's co-defendants and found a violation of their rights set out in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38-50, 2 March 2006; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 74-86, 6 December 2007; Kolunov, cited above, §§ 48-58; and Zentsov and Others, cited above, §§ 56-66).

• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 22635/03

  SULEJMANOVIC c. ITALIE

  Il n'en demeure pas moins que dans certains cas le manque d'espace personnel pour les détenus était tellement flagrant qu'il justifiait, à lui seul, le constat de violation de l'article 3. Dans ces cas, en principe, les requérants disposaient individuellement de moins de 3 m² (Aleksandr Makarov c. Russie, no 15217/07, § 93, 12 mars 2009 ; voir également Lind c. Russie, no 25664/05, § 59, 6 décembre 2007 ; Kantyrev c. Russie, no 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 juin 2007 ; Andreï Frolov c. Russie, no 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 mars 2007 ; Labzov c. Russie, no 62208/00, § 44, 16 juin 2005, et Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, § 40, 20 janvier 2005).

  La Cour a pris en compte des facteurs supplémentaires tels qu'un accès insuffisant à la lumière et à l'air naturels, des conditions d'hygiène défaillantes, une chaleur excessive associée à un manque de ventilation, un risque concret de propagation de maladies, l'absence d'eau potable ou courante, le partage des lits entre prisonniers, une très courte durée de la promenade - une ou deux heures par jour -, la circonstance que les services sanitaires se trouvaient dans la cellule et étaient visibles, et l'absence de traitement adéquat pour les pathologies d'un requérant (voir, notamment, les arrêts Aleksandr Makarov c. Russie, no 15217/07, §§ 94-100, 12 mars 2009 ; Gagiu c. Roumanie, no 63258/00, §§ 76-82, 24 février 2009 ; Moisseiev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 121-127, 9 octobre 2008 ; Lind c. Russie, no 25664/05, §§ 58-63, 6 décembre 2007 ; Grichine c. Russie, no 30983/02, §§ 85-97, 15 novembre 2007 ; Babouchkine c. Russie, no 67253/01, §§ 40-51, 18 octobre 2007 ; Trepachkine c. Russie, no 36898/03, §§ 84-95, 19 juillet 2007 ; Andreï Frolov c. Russie, no 205/02, §§ 43-51, 29 mars 2007 ; Kantyrev c. Russie, no 37213/02, §§ 46-54, 21 juin 2007 ; Mamedova c. Russie, no 7064/05, §§ 61-67, 1er juin 2006 ; KadiÄ·is c. Lettonie (no 2), no 62393/00, §§ 51-56, 4 mai 2006 ; Khoudoïorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 104-109, CEDH 2005-X ; Novosselov c. Russie, no 66460/01, §§ 40-46, 2 juin 2005 ; Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, §§ 39-43, 20 janvier 2005 ; Poltoratskiy c. Ukraine, no 38812/97, §§ 134-149, CEDH 2003-V ; Kalachnikov c. Russie, no 47095/99, §§ 96-103, CEDH 2002-VI ; Peers c. Grèce, no 28524/95, §§ 69-75, CEDH 2001-III, et Dougoz c. Grèce, no 40907/98, §§ 45-49, CEDH 2001-II).

• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  In those cases applicants usually disposed of less than three sq.m of personal space (see, for example, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).

 
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 40119/09

  CANALI c. FRANCE

  Cela étant, l'espace de vie individuel en l'espèce ne justifie pas, à lui seul, le constat de violation de l'article 3 de la Convention (a contrario, parmi de nombreux exemples, Lind c. Russie, no 25664/05, § 59, 6 décembre 2007 ; Mandic et Jovic c. Slovénie, nos 5774/10 et 5985/10, § 77, 20 octobre 2011), une telle violation n'étant retenue que lorsque les requérants disposent individuellement de moins de 3 m² (Ananyev, précité, § 145).
• EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 22765/12

  Leaks aus Ermittlungsakten können gegen Menschenrechtskonvention verstoßen

  In its previous cases where applicants had less than 4 sq m of personal space at their disposal, the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, among many other authorities, Sulejmanovic v. Italy, no. 22635/03, § 51, 16 July 2009, and Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 16986/12

  ALEXANDRU ENACHE c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour a ainsi examiné la légalité et la proportionnalité des limitations aux droits des détenus de recevoir les visites de leurs familles (Moïsseïev c. Russie, no 62936/00, § 246, 9 octobre 2008 ; Laduna, précité, § 54 ; et Varnas, précité, § 110), d'obtenir l'autorisation de rendre visite à un parent malade (Schemkamper c. France, no 75833/01, § 31, 18 octobre 2005 et Lind c. Russie, no 25664/05, § 92, 6 décembre 2007) ou de se rendre aux funérailles d'un membre de la famille (Giszczak c. Pologne, no 40195/08, §§ 36-40, 29 novembre 2011), d'avoir recours à l'insémination artificielle (Dickson, précité, § 66) ou de communiquer par téléphone avec les membres de leur famille dans leur langue maternelle (Nusret Kaya et autres c. Turquie, nos 43750/06, 43752/06, 32054/08, 37753/08 et 60915/08, § 36, CEDH 2014 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 17249/12

  SZAFRANSKI v. POLAND

  In the context of prison conditions the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in cases which involved overcrowding in prison cells (see, among many other authorities, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007, and Orchowski, cited above, § 135).
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 11463/09

  SAMARAS ET AUTRES c. GRECE

  Il n'en demeure pas moins que dans certaines affaires le manque d'espace personnel pour les détenus était tellement flagrant qu'il justifiait, à lui seul, le constat de violation de l'article 3. Dans ces affaires, les requérants disposaient individuellement de moins de 3 m² (Aleksandr Makarov c. Russie, no 15217/07, § 93, 12 mars 2009 ; Lind c. Russie, no 25664/05, § 59, 6 décembre 2007 ; Kantyrev c. Russie, no 37213/02, 21 juin 2007, §§ 50-51 ; Andreï Frolov, précité, §§ 47-49 ; Labzov c. Russie, no 62208/00, § 44, 16 juin 2005, et Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, § 40, 20 janvier 2005).
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE AND UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA

  It further reiterates that the refusal of leave to attend a relative's funeral constitutes an interference with the right to respect for family life (see Schemkamper v. France, no. 75833/01, § 31, 18 October 2005; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 92, 6 December 2007; and Feldman v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 42921/09, § 32, 12 January 2012).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE

  Le droit interne pertinent concernant la durée de la détention provisoire est résumé dans l'arrêt Lind c. Russie (no 25664/05, §§ 47-52, 6 décembre 2007).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04

  ZAKHARKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04

  LAUTARU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02

  STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2019 - 48798/14

  GUIMON c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  HADADE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 5250/11

  PYKHTUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 5711/10

  LALIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 32940/08

  TEHRANI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 55325/15 (anhängig)

  RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 15669/13

  KOSENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 78344/14

  VONICA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 20077/04

  SULDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 40950/12

  BANASZKOWSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  RADUCANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 20754/07

  RAZIBAOUENE c. FRANCE