Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (23) Neu Zitiert selbst (22)
- EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
W. c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).However, with the passage of time the mere availability of the information, without any evidence to support its veracity, inevitably became less and less relevant, particularly so when the applicant persistently disputed his ability to abscond, alleging that no property had been sold or foreign currency bought and referring to his age, poor health, lack of a valid passport for travel or medical insurance and the fact that he had no relatives and did not own property outside the Tomsk Region to confirm that there was no danger of his absconding (see, by contrast, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 33, Series A no. 254-A).
They should have analysed other pertinent factors, such as the advancement of the investigation or judicial proceedings, the applicant's personality, his behaviour before and after the arrest and any other specific indications justifying the fear that he might abuse his regained liberty by carrying out acts aimed at falsification or destruction of evidence or manipulation of witnesses (see W., cited above, § 36, Series A no. 254-A).
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh, cited above, § 44, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the true facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV).
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
Although measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
- EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02
GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
Although there was no allegation of overcrowding beyond the design capacity or of a shortage of sleeping places (see, by contrast, Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, § 89, 15 November 2007, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI), the conditions in the detention facility were nevertheless extremely cramped.It is also of particular concern for the Court that although a partition was installed between the living area and the lavatory pan, it did not offer privacy to a detainee using the toilet as he could still be seen by other inmates sitting on the bunks or by warders (compare with Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, § 94, 15 November 2007).
- EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01
VLASOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court found a violation of Article 3 since the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 94, 19 July 2007; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III).Until his conviction, the accused must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require him to be released provisionally once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 104, 12 June 2008, with further references).
- EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court found a violation of Article 3 since the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 94, 19 July 2007; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99
SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
m of personal space (see, for example, Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005). - EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
m of personal space (see, for example, Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005). - EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
This is particularly true in the Russian legal system, where the characterisation in law of the facts - and thus the sentence faced by the applicant - is determined by the prosecution without judicial review of whether the evidence obtained supports a reasonable suspicion that the applicant has committed the alleged offence (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 180, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02
Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland
- EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02
KANTYREV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03
TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01
BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
- EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
- EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94
GIBAS c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81
LEANDER c. SUÈDE
- EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA
Even though he received a personal reply that his complaint was to be examined, the Court reiterates that, as a general rule, an application to an ombudsman cannot be regarded as an effective remedy as required by Article 35 of the Convention, because the ombudsman has no power to render a binding decision granting redress (see Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 84, 12 March 2009, with further references).The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
- BVerfG, 07.11.2012 - 2 BvR 1567/11
Strafvollzug (Menschenwürde; Haftraum; Ausstattung; Zellengröße); Zulässigkeit …
In der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte sind Verstöße gegen Art. 3 EMRK nur in Fällen erheblich gravierenderer Beengtheit der räumlichen Verhältnisse festgestellt worden (vgl. BVerfGK 12, 410 , m.w.N., sowie aus jüngerer Zeit EGMR…, Urteil vom 7. April 2009, Brânduse./. Rumänien, Beschwerde Nr. 6586/03, Rn. 49;… Urteil vom 20. Januar 2009, Slawomir Musial ./. Polen, Beschwerde Nr. 28300/06, Rn. 95;… Urteil vom 16. Juli 2009, Sulejmanovic ./. Italien, Beschwerde Nr. 22635/03, Rn. 43; Urteil vom 12. März 2009, Aleksandr Makarov ./. Russland, Beschwerde Nr. 15217/07, Rn. 93;… Urteil vom 22. Mai 2012, 1dalov ./. Russland, Beschwerde Nr. 5826/03, Rn. 101, m.w.N.). - EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 22635/03
SULEJMANOVIC c. ITALIE
Il n'en demeure pas moins que dans certains cas le manque d'espace personnel pour les détenus était tellement flagrant qu'il justifiait, à lui seul, le constat de violation de l'article 3. Dans ces cas, en principe, les requérants disposaient individuellement de moins de 3 m² (Aleksandr Makarov c. Russie, no 15217/07, § 93, 12 mars 2009 ; voir également Lind c. Russie, no 25664/05, § 59, 6 décembre 2007 ; Kantyrev c. Russie, no 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 juin 2007 ; Andreï Frolov c. Russie, no 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 mars 2007 ; Labzov c. Russie, no 62208/00, § 44, 16 juin 2005, et Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, § 40, 20 janvier 2005).La Cour a pris en compte des facteurs supplémentaires tels qu'un accès insuffisant à la lumière et à l'air naturels, des conditions d'hygiène défaillantes, une chaleur excessive associée à un manque de ventilation, un risque concret de propagation de maladies, l'absence d'eau potable ou courante, le partage des lits entre prisonniers, une très courte durée de la promenade - une ou deux heures par jour -, la circonstance que les services sanitaires se trouvaient dans la cellule et étaient visibles, et l'absence de traitement adéquat pour les pathologies d'un requérant (voir, notamment, les arrêts Aleksandr Makarov c. Russie, no 15217/07, §§ 94-100, 12 mars 2009 ; Gagiu c. Roumanie, no 63258/00, §§ 76-82, 24 février 2009 ; Moisseiev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 121-127, 9 octobre 2008 ; Lind c. Russie, no 25664/05, §§ 58-63, 6 décembre 2007 ; Grichine c. Russie, no 30983/02, §§ 85-97, 15 novembre 2007 ; Babouchkine c. Russie, no 67253/01, §§ 40-51, 18 octobre 2007 ; Trepachkine c. Russie, no 36898/03, §§ 84-95, 19 juillet 2007 ; Andreï Frolov c. Russie, no 205/02, §§ 43-51, 29 mars 2007 ; Kantyrev c. Russie, no 37213/02, §§ 46-54, 21 juin 2007 ; Mamedova c. Russie, no 7064/05, §§ 61-67, 1er juin 2006 ; KadiÄ·is c. Lettonie (no 2), no 62393/00, §§ 51-56, 4 mai 2006 ; Khoudoïorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 104-109, CEDH 2005-X ; Novosselov c. Russie, no 66460/01, §§ 40-46, 2 juin 2005 ; Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, §§ 39-43, 20 janvier 2005 ; Poltoratskiy c. Ukraine, no 38812/97, §§ 134-149, CEDH 2003-V ; Kalachnikov c. Russie, no 47095/99, §§ 96-103, CEDH 2002-VI ; Peers c. Grèce, no 28524/95, §§ 69-75, CEDH 2001-III, et Dougoz c. Grèce, no 40907/98, §§ 45-49, CEDH 2001-II).
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06
SADRETDINOV v. RUSSIA
The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)). - EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09
TKACHUK c. RUSSIE
Par ailleurs, lorsque le juge de première instance a refusé de placer le requérant sous la surveillance de sa mère (paragraphe 13 ci-dessus), il n'a pas pour autant recherché si une autre mesure préventive telle que l'assignation à domicile pouvait se substituer à la détention provisoire de l'intéressé (Zherebin, précité, § 59, et Aleksandr Makarov c. Russie, no 15217/07, §§ 138-139, 12 mars 2009). - EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 2430/06
GANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
For that reason, the Court is unable to entertain the claims which the respondent Government raised for the first time in the proceedings before it (see, mutatis mutandis, Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia, no. 41716/08, § 49, 29 May 2012; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 128, 12 March 2009; Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, § 76, ECHR 2008; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 102, 4 October 2005; and Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 74, 30 January 2003). - EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09
UTVENKO ET BORISOV c. RUSSIE
Elle note que les juridictions internes n'ont pas recherché si une autre mesure préventive telle que l'assignation à domicile pouvait se substituer à la détention provisoire de l'intéressé (Zherebin c. Russie, no 51445/09, § 59, 24 mars 2016, et Aleksandr Makarov c. Russie, no 15217/07, §§ 138-139, 12 mars 2009). - EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 26418/11
HERMAN ET SERAZADISHVILI c. GRÈCE
Elle disposait donc un espace personnel de moins de 3 m2 ce qui, en principe, justifie, à lui seul, le constat de violation de l'article 3 (voir paragraphe 36 ci-dessus, ainsi que Samaras et autres c. Grèce, no 11463/09, § 58, 28 février 2012 ; Aleksandr Makarov c. Russie, no 15217/07, § 93, 12 mars 2009). - EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 40834/11
KALINICHENKO c. RUSSIE
La Cour note également que les juridictions internes n'ont pas recherché si une autre mesure préventive pouvait se substituer à la détention provisoire de l'intéressé (Zherebin c. Russie, no 51445/09, § 59, 24 mars 2016, et Aleksandr Makarov c. Russie, no 15217/07, §§ 138-139, 12 mars 2009). - EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13
STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA
Indeed, the Court observes that the applicants have individual cells, and not multi-occupancy cells, and that the cell doors are solid rather than transparent panels, and thus no privacy issues arise (compare, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 97, 12 March 2009, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 99, ECHR 2002-VI § 99). - EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14
PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO
- EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 11463/09
SAMARAS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
- EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12
KALININ v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 26452/11
TATISHVILI c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
POPANDOPULO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10
DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 5969/09
RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09
MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10
ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 29450/20
HUREZANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34942/05
KOLKUTIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 71645/13
YANEZ PINON AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13
LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA