Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ARUTYUNYAN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-3 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Arutyunyan v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161 in fine, Series A no. 25, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, 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, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  In accordance with the Court's settled case-law, ill-treatment must 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, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX; and Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 42023/98, § 108, 10 February 2004).

  Thus, in Mouisel v. France (no. 67263/01, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002-IX) the Court examined such elements of the case as (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of the applicant.

• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 61828/00

  SAKKOPOULOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  The Court cannot rule out the possibility that in particularly serious cases situations may arise where the proper administration of criminal justice requires remedies to be taken in the form of humanitarian measures (see Matencio v. France, no. 58749/00, § 76, 15 January 2004, and Sakkopoulos v. Greece, no. 61828/00, § 38, 15 January 2004).

  The applicant's potential "dangerousness" was also taken into account in the case of Sakkopoulos v. Greece (no. 61828/00, § 44, 15 January 2004) in order to decide whether his continuous detention was justified.

 
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  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-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  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).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that it has already had an occasion to find Article 3 violated by the lack of opportunity for outdoor exercise (see Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 146, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  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-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  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-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  In particular, regard must be had to the character of the person involved, his morals, his assets, and so on (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; see also Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; and Ilijkov, cited above, § 81).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 63716/00

  SAWONIUK contre le ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 25875/03

  GELFMANN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 33834/03

  RIVIERE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 2974/05

  VASYUKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  They are similar to several cases in which the Court found a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention owing to the combination of a lack of any reasons for ordering pre-trial detention and a failure to fix its duration (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 136-37, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Vladimir Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-98, 24 May 2007; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 111-14, 23 April 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 92-93, 10 January 2012; and Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, § 43, 27 June 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 44084/10

  GÜLAY ÇETIN c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence, pour tomber sous le coup de l'article 3 de la Convention, un mauvais traitement doit atteindre un minimum de gravité, dont l'appréciation est relative par essence et dépend de l'ensemble des données de la cause, notamment de la durée du traitement et de ses effets physiques et mentaux, ainsi que, parfois, du sexe, de l'âge et de l'état de santé de la victime (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Price c. Royaume-Uni, no 33394/96, § 24, CEDH 2001-VII, Pretty c. Royaume-Uni, no 2346/02, § 52, CEDH 2002-III, Kudla c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, § 91, CEDH 2000-XI, Mouisel c. France, no 67263/01, § 37, CEDH 2002-IX, Naoumenko, précité, § 108, et Arutyunyan c. Russie, no 48977/09, § 68, 10 janvier 2012.
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 10401/12

  HELHAL c. FRANCE

  De même, le requérant n'exprime pas de souffrance quant à ses déplacements dans les différentes ailes du bâtiment et la Cour observe que celui-ci est équipé d'un ascenseur qu'il peut utiliser à l'occasion (voir, a contrario, Arutyunyan c. Russie, no 48977/09, §§ 78-79, 10 janvier 2012).

 
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 13668/21

  MELIA v. GEORGIA

  Citing the cases of Wemhoff v. Germany (27 June 1968, Series A no. 7), Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey (8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A), Bakhmutskiy v. Russia (no. 36932/02, 25 June 2009), and Arutyunyan v. Russia (no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012), the appellate court emphasised that detention must constitute a measure of last resort and that any decision ordering it must be based on relevant and sufficient grounds to justify departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty.
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 10067/11

  PATSOS c. GRÈCE

  Cela étant, pour examiner la compatibilité du maintien en détention d'un requérant avec un état de santé préoccupant, la Cour doit tenir compte notamment de trois éléments, à savoir: a) la situation du détenu, b) la qualité des soins dispensés et c) l'opportunité de maintenir la détention au vu de l'état de santé de l'intéressé (Farbtuhs c. Lettonie, no 4672/02, § 53, 2 décembre 2004, Sakkopoulos précité, § 39, Enea c. Italie, [GC], no 74912/01, § 59, 17 septembre 2009, Arutyunyan c. Russie, no 48977/09, 10 janvier 2012, Sakhvadze c. Russie, no 15492/09, 10 janvier 2012 et Vladimir Vasilyev c. Russie, no 28370/05, 10 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  PLETMENTSEV v. RUSSIA

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 87-88, 10 January 2012; and Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 120, 23 February 2012).