Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  Since this right is of absolute character, the Court finds it possible to award the applicant 5, 000 euros (EUR) by way of non-pecuniary damage (compare Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 87-88, 20 January 2005), plus any tax that may be chargeable.

• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court previously found it necessary, in rare cases, to make a monetary award in respect of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made or where the claim was belated, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the cases, for instance the absolute or fundamental character of the right or freedom violated (see, in relation to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008; in relation to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation or appalling conditions of detention, Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in relation to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).

  [69] See, for example, Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 50, 7 June 2007; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Boordin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012, which all concerned violations of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  In the absence of convincing information from the Government, the Court will examine the issue on the basis of the first applicant's submissions (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 68, 12 November 2015, and Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 35, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA

  Ce droit étant absolu, elle estime pouvoir accorder exceptionnellement à l'intéressé 10 000 euros (EUR) pour dommage moral (comparer avec Igor Ivanov c. Russie, no 34000/02, § 50, 7 juin 2007, et Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, §§ 87-88, 20 janvier 2005), plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d'impôt.

 
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  However, based on the powers conferred on it by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court previously found it equitable to make a monetary award in respect of just satisfaction on account of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made, for instance taking into account the absolute character of the right violated (see Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in the context of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the findings in paragraph 66 above and the applicable principles, the Court considers that this period was such as to bar the Court's competence by virtue of the six-month rule in respect of the complaint regarding the conditions of detention from 10 December 2004 to 11 April 2005 (compare Benediktov, cited above, § 31; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 30, 7 June 2007; and Guliyev, cited above, §§ 31-33; see also, mutatis mutandis, Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 32-37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  BELASHEV v. RUSSIA

  More specifically, the Court reiterates that it has recently found a violation of Article 3 on account of an applicant's detention in overcrowded conditions in the same detention facility and at the same time (see Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 16-18 and §§ 30-41, 7 June 2007, and Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, §§ 20-22 and §§ 40-51, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  BUZYCHKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the applicant's detention from 5 June 1998 to 28 May 1999 constituted a continuous situation and will examine it as a whole without dividing it into separate periods (see Benediktov v. Russia, cited above, § 31, Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 30, 7 June 2007 and, mutatis mutandis, Novinskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 11982/02, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 39420/03

  BYCHKOV v. RUSSIA

  More specifically, the Court has recently found a violation of Article 3 on account of an applicant's detention in overcrowded conditions in the same detention facilities and approximately at the same time (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 31-41, Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 16-18, and §§ 30-41, 7 June 2007; and Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, §§ 40-51, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  SUDARKOV v. RUSSIA

  More specifically, the Court reiterates that it has recently found a violation of Article 3 on account of an applicant's detention in overcrowded conditions in the same detention facilities and at the same time (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 31-41, and Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 16-18 and §§ 30-41, 7 June 2007).