Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,56203
EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00 (https://dejure.org/2008,56203)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.10.2008 - 62936/00 (https://dejure.org/2008,56203)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Oktober 2008 - 62936/00 (https://dejure.org/2008,56203)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,56203) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violations of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-b and 6-3-c No Violation of Art. 7 Violations of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Hinweis zu den Links:
Zu grauen Einträgen liegen derzeit keine weiteren Informationen vor. Sie können diese Links aber nutzen, um die Einträge beispielsweise in Ihre Merkliste aufzunehmen.

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





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

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Neu Zitiert selbst (40)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

    CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
    The importance to the rights of the defence of ensuring confidentiality in the relations between the accused and his lawyers has been affirmed in various international instruments and the Court's case-law (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 133, ECHR 2005-IV; Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, §§ 38-40, ECHR 2001-X, and Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, § 47).

    The Court reiterates that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; and Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 78, 4 July 2000).

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
    Although there was no allegation of overcrowding beyond the design capacity or of a shortage of sleeping places (see, by contrast, Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, § 89, 15 November 2007, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI), the conditions in the prison were nevertheless extremely cramped.

    Furthermore, the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).

  • EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

    PULLICINO v. MALTA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
    Indeed, the defence of the accused's interests may best be served by the contribution which the accused makes to his lawyer's conduct of the case before the accused is called to give evidence (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., and Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000).
  • EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

    Schießbefehl

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
    When speaking of "law" Article 7 alludes to the very same concept as that to which the Convention refers elsewhere when using that term, a concept which comprises written as well as unwritten law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, among other authorities, S.W. v. the United Kingdom and C.R. v. the United Kingdom, judgments of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-C, §§ 34-35 and §§ 32-33; and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], no. 34044/96, 35532/97, 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

    AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
    Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, in order to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, for instance, Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, §§ 32 and 34, ECHR 2006-..., and Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

    VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
    In any event, the Court reiterates that, although physical separation of a detainee from his visitors may be justified by security considerations in certain cases (see the above-cited Italian cases and also the Dutch cases concerning a prison regime designed to prevent escapes: Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 71, ECHR 2003-II, and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 85, 4 February 2003), the measure cannot be considered necessary in the absence of any established security risk (see Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 117, 19 June 2007).
  • EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

    LORSE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
    In any event, the Court reiterates that, although physical separation of a detainee from his visitors may be justified by security considerations in certain cases (see the above-cited Italian cases and also the Dutch cases concerning a prison regime designed to prevent escapes: Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 71, ECHR 2003-II, and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 85, 4 February 2003), the measure cannot be considered necessary in the absence of any established security risk (see Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 117, 19 June 2007).
  • EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

    KLAMECKI v. POLAND (No. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
    Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
  • EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 33914/02

    SKOROBOGATOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
    As regards his challenges to judicial officers and procedural requests, the Court reiterates that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his or her interest (see Skorobogatova v. Russia, no. 33914/02, § 47, 1 December 2005).
  • EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 65411/01

    SACILOR LORMINES c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
    Having regard to the above considerations, the Court finds that in the applicant's case the Russian criminal law failed to provide the guarantees that would have been sufficient to exclude any objective doubt as to the absence of inappropriate pressure on judges in the performance of their judicial duties (compare Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 36, ECHR 2000-X, and, by contrast, Sacilor-Lormines v. France, no. 65411/01, § 67, ECHR 2006-...).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

    ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

  • EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

    CIORAP v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

    Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  • EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

    KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 19.02.2008 - 74357/01

    KUOLELIS, BARTOSEVICIUS AND BUROKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

    CAN v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

    DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

    BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

    POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

    BORGERS v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

    JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

    BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

    MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

    LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

    McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

    CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02

    Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland

  • EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

    KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03

    TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

    BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

    GRISHIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

    LIND v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

    W. c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

  • BVerwG, 11.07.2013 - 5 C 23.12

    Entschädigung; angemessene -; Entschädigungsanspruch; Entschädigungsanspruch bei

    Dies gilt auch, soweit in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte - allerdings obiter und deshalb die jeweilige Entscheidung nicht tragend - eine Verfahrenslaufzeit von etwa einem Jahr pro Instanz als grober Anhalt ("rough rule of thumb") genannt wird (vgl. Urteile vom 26. November 2009 - Nr. 13591/05, Nazarov/Russland - Rn. 126, vom 9. Oktober 2008 - Nr. 62936/00, Moiseyev/Russland - Rn. 160 und vom 16. Januar 2003 - Nr. 50034/99, Obasa/Großbritannien - Rn. 35 ).
  • BFH, 07.11.2013 - X K 13/12

    Unangemessene Dauer eines finanzgerichtlichen Klageverfahrens

    Ganz überwiegend sind diese Entscheidungen von vornherein nicht zu Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK ergangen, der den Anspruch auf Entscheidung "innerhalb angemessener Frist" enthält, sondern zu Freiheitsentziehungen i.S. des Art. 5 EMRK, der in Abs. 4 einen Anspruch auf gerichtliche Entscheidung "innerhalb kurzer Frist" vorsieht (zu Strafverfahren in der Russischen Förderation vgl. Entscheidungen des EGMR vom 7. April 2005  54071/00 --Rokhlina--; vom 8. November 2005  6847/02 --Khudoyorov--; vom 24. Mai 2007  27193/02 --Ignatov--, Rz 111; vom 9. Oktober 2008  62936/00 --Moiseyev--, Rz 160, und vom 26. November 2009  13591/05 --Nazarov--, Rz 126; zur zwangsweisen Unterbringung eines als "Psychopathen" eingestuften Straftäters in einer britischen Klinik vgl. EGMR-Urteil vom 20. Februar 2003  50272/99 --Hutchison Reid--, Rz 79).
  • BVerwG, 11.07.2013 - 5 C 27.12

    Enteignungsentschädigung; Entschädigung; angemessene -; Entschädigungsanspruch;

    Dies gilt auch, soweit in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte - allerdings obiter und deshalb die jeweilige Entscheidung nicht tragend - eine Verfahrenslaufzeit von etwa einem Jahr pro Instanz als grober Anhalt ("rough rule of thumb") genannt wird (vgl. Urteile vom 26. November 2009 - Nr. 13591/05, Nazarov/Russland - Rn. 126, vom 9. Oktober 2008 - Nr. 62936/00, Moiseyev/Russland - Rn. 160 und vom 16. Januar 2003 - Nr. 50034/99, Obasa/Großbritannien - Rn. 35 ).
  • EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12

    Lampedusa-Haft war illegal

    Thus, in such cases, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 where the lack of space went together with other poor material conditions of detention such as: a lack of ventilation and light (see Torreggiani and Others, cited above, § 69; see also Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 124-27, 9 October 2008); limited access to outdoor exercise (see István Gábor Kovács v. Hungary, no. 15707/10, § 26, 17 January 2012) or a total lack of privacy in the cell (see Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

    KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

    En d'autres termes, l'État ne peut avoir toute latitude pour introduire des restrictions générales sans prévoir une dose de flexibilité permettant de déterminer si les limitations apportées dans chaque cas particulier sont opportunes ou réellement nécessaires (voir, mutatis mutandis, Moïsseïev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 254-255, 9 octobre 2008), spécialement en ce qui concerne les détenus condamnés (Harakchiev et Tolumov, précité, § 204).
  • EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 23190/17

    PETRESCU c. PORTUGAL

    Aussi, dans pareilles affaires, la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 dès lors que le manque d'espace s'accompagnait d'autres mauvaises conditions matérielles de détention, telles qu'un manque de ventilation et de lumière (Torreggiani et autres, précité, § 69 ; voir également Moisseiev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 124-127, 9 octobre 2008 ; Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, § 84, 12 juin 2008 ; et Babouchkine c. Russie, no 67253/01, § 44, 18 octobre 2007), un accès limité à la promenade en plein air (István Gábor Kovács c. Hongrie, no 15707/10, § 26, 17 janvier 2012 ; Efremidze c. Grèce, no 33225/08, § 38, 21 juin 2011 ; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko c. Russie, no 41833/04, §§ 88-89, 27 janvier 2011 ; Gladkiy c. Russie, no 3242/03, § 69, 21 décembre 2010 ; Shuvaev c. Grèce, no 8249/07, § 39, 29 octobre 2009 ; et Vafiadis c. Grèce, no 24981/07, § 36, 2 juillet 2009) ou un manque total d'intimité dans les cellules (Szafransky c. Pologne, no 17249/12, §§ 39-41, 15 décembre 2015 ; Veniosov c. Ukraine, no 30634/05, § 36, 15 décembre 2011 ; Mustafayev c. Ukraine, no 36433/05, § 32, 13 octobre 2011 ; Belevitski c. Russie, no 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1er mars 2007 ; Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 106-107, CEDH 2005-X (extraits) ; et Novosselov c. Russie, no 66460/01, §§ 32 et 40-43, 2 juin 2005).
  • EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04

    ROMOKHOV v. RUSSIA

    Moreover, in a number of judgments the Court has held that the problem of overcrowding was of a structural nature and thus did not concern the applicants' personal situation (see Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 34, 19 June 2008; Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03

    GENERALOV v. RUSSIA

    It has also found it established that the problems arising from the conditions of detention in Russian remand prisons were of a structural nature (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006, and Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1066/05

    DOROGAYKIN v. RUSSIA

    The Court has also established that the problems arising from the conditions of detention in Russian remand centres were of a structural nature (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006, and Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 10638/08

    ALEKHIN v. RUSSIA

    A violation of that Article was also found in cases where an applicant was transported many times to the courthouse and back in extremely cramped conditions (see Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 131 to 136, 9 October 2008, where the applicant was transported on more than one hundred and fifty days; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53 to 60, 31 July 2008, where the applicant was transported on one hundred and ninety-five days; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 92 to 99, 12 June 2008, where the applicant was transported on more than one hundred days; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118 to 120, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), where the applicant was transported on about two hundred days).
  • EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

    DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

    POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 52193/09

    VOLFOVYCH v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 35878/08

    PANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 4963/06

    KURUSHIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 45353/05

    FATIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 27498/06

    ZHIZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 43589/02

    SALAKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 15172/07

    KONYGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 30468/07

    MALAKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 35644/08

    KIRSANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

    KOMISSAROVA v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht