Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13   

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/2016,15228
EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13 (https://dejure.org/2016,15228)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.05.2016 - 78774/13 (https://dejure.org/2016,15228)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Mai 2016 - 78774/13 (https://dejure.org/2016,15228)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,15228) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA

    No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);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);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (20)

  • EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 56220/15

    AMIROV v. RUSSIA

    The relevant provisions of domestic and international law are set out in Topekhin v. Russia (no. 78774/13, §§ 51-58, 10 May 2016), and Amirov v. Russia (no. 51857/13, §§ 50-57 and §§ 59-60, 27 November 2014).

    The applicable general principles were summarised in the cases of Blokhin v. Russia ([GC] no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, ECHR 2016); Topekhin v. Russia (no. 78774/13, §§ 66-70, and 78-81, 10 May 2016); and Amirov (cited above, §§ 82-86).

  • EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

    LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

    As a result of the repeated adjournments, there were several long periods when no hearings were held - from 3 December 2010 to 31 March 2011, from 23 June 2011 to 7 December 2011, from 15 June 2012 to 3 October 2012, from 30 November 2012 to 3 March 2013, from 26 March 2013 to 6 October 2013, and from 26 November 2013 to 16 February 2014 - amounting to a total period of more than two years without a single hearing (see paragraph 41 above; see, mutatis mutandis, Dervishi v. Croatia, no. 67341/10, § 144, 25 September 2012, and Süveges, cited above, § 101; compare and contrast Sigarev v. Russia, no. 53812/10, § 56, 30 October 2014, and Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, § 109, 10 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 18496/16

    ESKERKHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia, where, for instance, the proceedings by which the lawfulness of an applicant's detention was decided lasted twenty-seven days (see Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 154-56, 23 October 2012), sixty days (see Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, § 115, 10 May 2016) or one hundred days (see Pelevin v. Russia, no. 38726/05, §§ 64-67, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 8741/15

    PASHKEVICH v. RUSSIA

    Taking into account the above, the Court considers that the authorities failed to ensure that the applicant's well-being was adequately secured (see Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 84-88, 10 May 2016; Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, § 93, 27 November 2014; Semikhvostov, cited above, §§ 77-86; and Asalya v. Turkey, no. 43875/09, §§ 49-54, 15 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 14.06.2018 - 67947/13

    DZHANARALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding conditions of detention of disabled inmates (see, for instance, Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 78-81, 10 May 2016, and Butrin v. Russia, no. 16179/14, §§ 46-51, 22 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 60316/08

    KOCHNEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 6671/14

    KASHESHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding conditions of detention of disabled inmates (see, for instance, Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 78-81, 10 May 2016, and Butrin v. Russia, no. 16179/14, §§ 46-51, 22 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 10216/06

    SYARKEVICH v. RUSSIA

    Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, § 104, 10 May 2016, with further references).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 57426/14

    DVORETSKIY v. RUSSIA

    Having examined all the material before it, the Court notes that, given the relatively short duration of the applicant's detention (which lasted slightly longer than five months), the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicant's involvement in a violent offence against a State official and the existence of a serious risk of his re-offending, absconding or interfering with justice, given his criminal history of violent offences against the judiciary and the pattern of his behaviour, including a breach of non-custodial measure in separate criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that the domestic courts had failed to duly consider all relevant factors or that they did not give "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons to justify the applicant's detention, or that they failed to display "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 49507/10

    DUDNICHENKO AND WAES v. RUSSIA

    The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012 and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 2091/11

    ELKSNIT AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 27122/10

    VINOGRADOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 11220/14

    MIHAILESCU v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR - 9044/17 (anhängig)

    HAVIK v. ESTONIA and 1 other application

  • EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 19445/10

    LEJK v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 25875/11

    LIPNICKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 09.11.2017 - 46427/16

    SADRIYEV AND DEMIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 57410/16

    PAVLOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 34550/08

    BEZRUKOV AND SHCHERBAKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 76650/13

    YEFIMENKO AND OTHERS 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