Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHERSTOBITOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  The Court reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7, and Labita, cited above, §§ 145 and 147).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Panchenko, cited above § 102; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001; and Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  Consideration has been given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with the Convention institutions' case-law, where lawfulness of detention is concerned, an action for damages against the State is not a remedy which has to be used because the right to have the lawfulness of detention examined by a court and the right to obtain compensation for any deprivation of liberty incompatible with Article 5 are two separate rights (see, among other authorities, Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  Consideration has been given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  This state of Russian law precludes any legal opportunity for the applicant to receive compensation for his detention, which was effected in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, § 62, 25 October 2007, and Govorushko v. Russia, no. 42940/06, § 60, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 42940/06

  GOVORUSHKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 37966/07

  ANTAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  ALEKSANDR NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, cited above, § 127; Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010; and Suleymanov v. Russia, no. 32501/11, § 157, 22 January 2013).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 26824/04

  KELLER v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to its conclusions above under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009; Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010; and Suleymanov v. Russia, no. 32501/11, § 157, 22 January 2013).

 
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 32501/11

  SULEYMANOV v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07

  MAKHASHEVY v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, cited above, § 127; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).