Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SUDARKOV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  "[T]he Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court or other State agencies, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern the applicant's personal situation (cf. Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; and, most recently, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006).

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  The Court considers that these aspects, while not in themselves capable of justifying the notion of "degrading" treatment, are relevant in addition to the focal factor of the severe overcrowding, to show that the applicant's detention conditions went beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3 of the Convention (see Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 44, 2 June 2005).

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  Even though the travel time did not exceed one hour, the Court considered such transport arrangements unacceptable (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118-120, ECHR 2005-X).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  More specifically, the Court reiterates that it has recently found a violation of Article 3 on account of an applicant's detention in overcrowded conditions in the same detention facilities and at the same time (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 31-41, and Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 16-18 and §§ 30-41, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  It considered such travel arrangements impermissible, irrespective of the duration (see Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 108-113, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  After that date his detention no longer fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), but within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, for instance, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39).

• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Il ajoute à cet égard que, dans d'autres affaires, la Cour s'est montrée réticente à accepter de pareilles attestations vu le laps de temps écoulé et l'absence de tout document original (citant Kokoshkina c. Russie, no 2052/08, § 60, 28 mai 2009 ; Soudarkov c. Russie, no 3130/03, § 43, 10 juillet 2008 ; Belachev c. Russie, no 28617/03, § 52, 4 décembre 2008 ; et Zakharkin c. Russie, no 1555/04, § 124, 10 juin 2010).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  When dealing with complaints in relation to conditions of detention that do not simply relate to a specific event, but concern a whole range of problems regarding sanitary conditions, the temperature in the cells, overcrowding, lack of adequate medical treatment and so on, which have affected an inmate throughout his or her incarceration, the Court regards this as a continuing situation, even if the person concerned has been transferred to various detention facilities (see Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 34-36, 26 June 2008; Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, § 40, 10 July 2008; and Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, no. 35972/05, §§ 136-38, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 6586/03

  BRANDUSE c. ROUMANIE

  S'il convient, assurément, de se garder de scinder artificiellement une période de détention continue en plusieurs parties du simple fait qu'est intervenu un transfert du détenu, la Cour estime néanmoins qu'en l'espèce, eu égard en particulier au caractère ponctuel et déterminé de l'aspect dont l'intéressé se plaint au sujet des locaux de la police d'Arad, on ne saurait considérer que le transfert du requérant en février 2002 n'a pas apporté un changement notable dans les conditions de détention décriées, pour conclure qu'il s'agirait d'une situation continue (a contrario, Seleznev, § 36, et Sudarkov c. Russie, no 3130/03, § 40, 10 juillet 2008).

 
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 29883/06

  MICU c. ROUMANIE

  S'il est vrai, comme le soutient le Gouvernement, que le requérant se plaint également d'autres aspect des conditions de détention, qui concernent l'un ou l'autre des lieux de détention, il n'en reste pas moins qu'au vu de la continuité de la période et de l'allégation commune et principale de surpeuplement, il convient de qualifier la situation de continue (mutatis mutandis Sudarkov c. Russie, no 3130/03, § 40, 10 juillet 2008 et Benediktov c. Russie, no 106/02, § 31, 10 mai 2007 et a contrario Brânduse précité § 42, et Mariana Marinescu c. Roumanie, no 36110/03, § 58, 2 février 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  BELASHEV v. RUSSIA

  More specifically, the Court reiterates that it has recently found a violation of Article 3 on account of an applicant's detention in overcrowded conditions in the same detention facility and at the same time (see Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 16-18 and §§ 30-41, 7 June 2007, and Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, §§ 20-22 and §§ 40-51, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 24378/04

  CIOLAN c. ROUMANIE

  Dès lors, en l'espèce, la Cour ne saurait conclure que le transfert de l'intéressé a apporté un changement notable dans les conditions de détention dénoncées, pour conclure qu'il ne s'agirait pas d'une situation continue (Sudarkov c. Russie, no 3130/03, § 40, 10 juillet 2008).
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 39420/03

  BYCHKOV v. RUSSIA

  More specifically, the Court has recently found a violation of Article 3 on account of an applicant's detention in overcrowded conditions in the same detention facilities and approximately at the same time (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 31-41, Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 16-18, and §§ 30-41, 7 June 2007; and Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, §§ 40-51, 10 July 2008).