Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04   

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/2011,55389
EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55389)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.02.2011 - 44973/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55389)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Februar 2011 - 44973/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55389)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55389) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PREMININY v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)




Kontextvorschau:





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

Wird zitiert von ... (15)  

  • EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 1128/16

    GJINI v. SERBIA

    In such circumstances, the absence of any direct State involvement in acts of violence that meet the condition of severity such as to engage Article 3 of the Convention does not absolve the State from its obligations under this provision (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 71, 10 February 2011).

    Unfortunately, this aspect of the issue is absent from the majority's analysis, in disregard of the Court's case-law on the subject (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 87, 10 February 2011, and Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, §§ 69-71, 27 May 2008).

  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

    TAUTKUS v. LITHUANIA

    Furthermore, contrary to the facts in Premininy v. Russia (no. 44973/04, § 89, 10 February 2011), the circumstances of the instant case did not show that the applicant had been the subject of systematic attacks; the applicant's medical file contained no record of suspicious injuries at the relevant time.

    [23] In Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, 10 February 2011, the Court criticised the fact that the administration of the detention facility had never considered the specific details of the first applicant's personal situation in their choice of co-detainees to place in his cell.

  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09

    KHATAYEV v. RUSSIA

    Observing the suspects", witnesses" and victims" demeanour during questioning and assessing the probative value of their testimony forms a substantial part of the investigative process (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 109, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14

    CEESAY v. AUSTRIA

    Furthermore the Court has emphasised that the positive obligation to protect persons in custody must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, in the context of Article 3, Pantea v. Romania, nï?° 33343/96, § 189, 3 June 2003; Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 83, 10 February 2011; Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 52, 27 November 2012; in the context of Article 2 see Ketreb v. France, no. 38447/09, §§ 71-72, 19 July 2012, with further references).
  • EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 58271/10

    A.S. c. TURQUIE

    Il s'agit là d'une question dont la réponse dépend de l'ensemble des circonstances de l'affaire en cause (Oshurko c. Ukraine, no 33108/05, § 70, 8 septembre 2011, Premininy c. Russie, no 44973/04, § 84, 10 février 2011).
  • EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 11160/07

    D.F. v. LATVIA

    The Court, in its case-law with regard to the protection of vulnerable prisoners, has clarified that the national authorities have an obligation to take all steps reasonably expected to prevent real and immediate risks to prisoners" physical integrity, of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see, among many other examples, Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 190, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 84, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

    SIZAREV v. UKRAINE

    The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the Contracting States not only to refrain from causing ill-treatment, but also to take the necessary preventive measures to preserve the physical safety and well-being of persons deprived of their liberty who find themselves in a vulnerable position by virtue of being under the control of the authorities (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III, Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX, and Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 73, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 25001/07

    STASI c. FRANCE

    La Cour estime donc établi que le requérant a subi en détention des violences suffisamment sérieuses pour conférer aux faits en cause le caractère de traitement inhumain et dégradant, au sens de l'article 3 (voir Pantea précité, § 185, Georgescu c. Roumanie, no 25230/03, § 73, 13 mai 2008, et Premininy c. Russie, no 44973/04, § 81, 10 février 2011).
  • EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

    M.C. v. POLAND

    The answer to the question whether the authorities fulfilled their positive obligation under Article 3 will depend on all the circumstances of the case under examination (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 84, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12

    DIMCHO DIMOV v. BULGARIA (NO. 2)

    Another important factor in this assessment is whether the detainee is particularly vulnerable, for instance because he or she is suffering from a mental disorder (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, §§ 189-92, 3 June 2003, and Korpachyova-Hofbauer v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 56668/12, §§ 4 and 35, 1 September 2015), is young (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 86, 10 February 2011) or belongs to a category at heightened risk of abuse (see Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, §§ 69-70, 27 May 2008 (detainees convicted of war crimes and kept unsegregated); Stasi, cited above, § 91 (homosexuals); J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012 (police collaborators); Aleksejeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012 (relatives of prison guards); Starovoitovs v.Latvia (dec.), no. 27343/05, §§ 35-38, 27 November 2012 (private security guards); Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 114, 17 January 2013 (court employees); D.F. v. Latvia, cited above, §§ 81 and 84 (sexual offenders); Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014 (police officers); and M.C. v. Poland, cited above, § 90 (persons accused of sexually abusing minors)).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

    CESNULEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

    ALEKSEJEVA v. LATVIA

  • EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 12311/06

    BORIS IVANOV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 56668/12

    KORPACHYOVA-HOFBAUER v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR - 14043/09 (anhängig)

    KAPRANOV v. RUSSIA

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