Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 25432/05   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2010,64722
EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 25432/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,64722)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.10.2010 - 25432/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,64722)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. Januar 2010 - 25432/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,64722)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,64722) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (7)  

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court has held in particular that the Government had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or another State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant's personal situation alone (see, among recent authorities, Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 92-93, 16 December 2010; Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, §§ 43-44, 7 October 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, §§ 82-84, 15 July 2010; Lutokhin, cited above, § 45; Skorobogatykh v. Russia, cited above, § 52; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 87-89, 12 March 2009; Benediktov, cited above, §§ 27-30; and also Moiseyev (dec.), cited above).

    Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, 7 October 2010 (IZ-77/2, Moscow, 2001-2005).

  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

    Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    The Court has frequently observed that a short duration of outdoor exercise limited to one hour a day was a factor that further exacerbated the situation of the applicant, who was confined to his cell for the rest of the time without any kind of freedom of movement (see Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, § 88, 27 January 2011; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 69, 21 December 2010, § 69, Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, § 54, 7 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

    FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court has held in particular that the Government had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or another State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant's personal situation alone (see, among recent authorities, Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 92-93, 16 December 2010; Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, §§ 43-44, 7 October 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, §§ 82-84, 15 July 2010; Lutokhin, cited above, § 45; Skorobogatykh v. Russia, no. 4871/03, § 52, 22 December 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 87-89, 12 March 2009; Benediktov, cited above, §§ 27-30; and also Moiseyev (dec.), cited above).
  • EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 19936/04

    VALERIY LOPATA v. RUSSIA

    The Court also observes that it has previously examined the question of the conditions of detention in IZ-77/1 and IZ-77/2 in 2003 and 2004 in its judgments in the cases of Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 210-20, 13 July 2006, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 58-63, 6 December 2007, Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 35-46, 31 July 2008, Andreyevskiy v. Russia, no. 1750/03, §§ 83-88, 29 January 2009, Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, §§ 51-62, 17 June 2010, Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, §§ 45-60, 7 October 2010, Romokhov v. Russia, no. 4532/04, §§ 77-86, 16 December 2010, Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 2), no. 14248/05, §§ 106-30, 16 December 2010, Ilyadi v. Russia, no. 6642/05, §§ 30-34, 5 May 2011 and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 103-19, 31 May 2011, and found them to have been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding.
  • EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

    SERGEY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

    The Court observes that this amount is much lower than what it generally awards in similar Russian cases (compare, Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, § 75, 7 October 2010; Vladimir Sokolov v. Russia, no. 31242/05, §§ 49, 58-64, 89, 29 March 2011; and Vadim Kovalev v. Russia, no. 20326/04, § 73, 10 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 4242/07

    RZAKHANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    As regards the other conditions in the cell, the Court notes that such factors as access to natural light or air, adequacy of heating arrangements, compliance with basic sanitary requirements, the opportunity to use the toilet in private, the state of ventilation and the availability of recreation and other outdoor exercise in prison are relevant to the assessment of whether the acceptable threshold of suffering or degradation has been exceeded (see, for example, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Peers, cited above, §§ 70-72; and Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, § 54, 7 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 41558/05

    GLOTOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has held in particular that the Government had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or another State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant's personal situation alone (see, among many authorities, Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 92-93, 16 December 2010; Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, §§ 43-44, 7 October 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, §§ 82-84, 15 July 2010; Lutokhin v. Russia, no. 12008/03, § 45, 8 April 2010; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 84-89, 12 March 2009, and Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 27-30, 10 May 2007).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht