Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SERGEY DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  No 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;Reasonableness of pre-trial ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  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).

• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 17318/06

  RATUSHNA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the existence of an actual breach of another provision is not a prerequisite for the application of Article 13 (see, for example, Camenzind v. Switzerland, 16 December 1997, § 53, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 130, 137 and 142, ECHR 2003-VIII; Nuri Kurt v. Turkey, no. 37038/97, § 117, 29 November 2005; and Ratushna v. Ukraine, no. 17318/06, § 85, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  The effect of this Article is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of an "arguable" complaint under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, as a classic reference, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131).

 
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04

  VERBINT v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  Ill-treatment must, however, attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Verbint v. Romania, no. 7842/04, § 63, 3 April 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify 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-X; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  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 part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI; and Kudla, cited above, § 94).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  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 Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; Ilijkov, cited above, § 81; and Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  The Court does not lose sight that arguments for and against release must not be general and abstract (see Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 44, Series A no. 225).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  A judge may take into account the seriousness of the consequences of criminal offences when there is a question of taking into account the danger of seeing such offences being repeated, in order to decide if the person concerned can be released (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 29744/13

  ZOGRAFOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  La Cour rappelle que le constat de violation d'une autre disposition de la Convention n'est pas une condition préalable à l'application de l'article 13 (Sergey Denisov c. Russie, no 21566/13, § 88, 8 octobre 2015, et les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 30030/15

  KOUREAS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  La Cour rappelle que le constat de violation d'une autre disposition de la Convention n'est pas une condition préalable pour l'application de l'article 13 (Sergey Denisov c. Russie, no 21566/13, § 88, 8 octobre 2015, et les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 77457/13

  DIKAIOU ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Sur le fond 64. La Cour rappelle d'emblée que le constat de violation d'une autre disposition de la Convention n'est pas une condition préalable pour l'application de l'article 13 (Sergey Denisov c. Russie, no 21566/13, § 88, 8 octobre 2015, et les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 5574/16

  PILALIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  La Cour rappelle que le constat de violation d'une autre disposition de la Convention n'est pas une condition préalable pour l'application de l'article 13 (Sergey Denisov c. Russie, no 21566/13, § 88, 8 octobre 2015, et les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 22369/14

  ABDO ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  La Cour rappelle que le constat de violation d'une autre disposition de la Convention n'est pas une condition préalable pour l'application de l'article 13 (Sergey Denisov c. Russie, no 21566/13, § 88, 8 octobre 2015, avec les références qui y sont citées).