Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violations of Art. 8 Violations of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 78146/01
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  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 prison were nevertheless extremely cramped.

  "[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 (compare 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).

  However, the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  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).

  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, the judgment in Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  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, for instance, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 30, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).

 
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, in order to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, for instance, Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, §§ 32 and 34, ECHR 2006-...., and Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002).
• EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  KLAMECKI v. POLAND (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  However, the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  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, for instance, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 30, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  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, for instance, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 30, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• 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, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

  GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  On the other hand, even in cases where the inmates appeared to have at their disposal sufficient personal space and a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court noted other aspects of physical conditions of detention as being relevant for the assessment of compliance with Article 3 and found a violation of that provision 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; and Trepashkin v. Russia, cited above, § 94), lack of outdoor exercise (see Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, §§ 60-61, 6 November 2012) and poor sanitary and hygiene conditions (see Jirsák v. the Czech Republic, no. 8968/08, §§ 64-73; Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 164-166).
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12

  Lampedusa-Haft war illegal

  Thus, in such cases, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 where the lack of space went together with other poor material conditions of detention such as: a lack of ventilation and light (see Torreggiani and Others, cited above, § 69; see also Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 124-27, 9 October 2008); limited access to outdoor exercise (see István Gábor Kovács v. Hungary, no. 15707/10, § 26, 17 January 2012) or a total lack of privacy in the cell (see Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 16483/12

  EGMR zum Umgang mit Flüchtlingen in Lampedusa - Die Würde des Menschen ist …

  Aussi, même dans des affaires où chaque détenu disposait de 3 à 4 m², la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 dès lors que le manque d'espace s'accompagnait d'un manque de ventilation et de lumière (Torreggiani et autres, précité, § 69 ; voir également Babouchkine c. Russie, no 67253/01, § 44, 18 octobre 2007 ; Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, § 84, 12 juin 2008 ; et Moisseiev, précité, §§ 124-127) ; d'un accès limité à la promenade en plein air (István Gábor Kovács c. Hongrie, no 15707/10, § 26, 17 janvier 2012) ou d'un manque total d'intimité dans les cellules (Novosselov c. Russie, no 66460/01, §§ 32 et 40-43, 2 juin 2005 ; Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 106-107, CEDH 2005-X (extraits) ; et Belevitski c. Russie, no 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1er mars 2007).

 
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 4158/05

  GILLAN ET QUINTON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 4, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; see also, amongst other examples, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 88-90, Series A no. 61; Funke v. France, §§ 56-57, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 62, 1 February 2007; Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-XI (extracts); Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 125, 12 June 2008; Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 81, 17 June 2008).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  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, 14.03.2013 - 24117/08

  BERNH LARSEN HOLDING AS AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Consequently, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 4, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; see also, amongst other examples, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, §§ 88-90, Series A no. 61; Funke v. France, §§ 56-57, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 44363/02, § 62, 1 February 2007; Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 46, ECHR 2007-XI (extracts); Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 125, 12 June 2008; and Meltex Ltd and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 32283/04, § 81, 17 June 2008).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 23190/17

  PETRESCU c. PORTUGAL

  Aussi, dans pareilles affaires, la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 dès lors que le manque d'espace s'accompagnait d'autres mauvaises conditions matérielles de détention, telles qu'un manque de ventilation et de lumière (Torreggiani et autres, précité, § 69 ; voir également Moisseiev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 124-127, 9 octobre 2008 ; Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, § 84, 12 juin 2008 ; et Babouchkine c. Russie, no 67253/01, § 44, 18 octobre 2007), un accès limité à la promenade en plein air (István Gábor Kovács c. Hongrie, no 15707/10, § 26, 17 janvier 2012 ; Efremidze c. Grèce, no 33225/08, § 38, 21 juin 2011 ; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko c. Russie, no 41833/04, §§ 88-89, 27 janvier 2011 ; Gladkiy c. Russie, no 3242/03, § 69, 21 décembre 2010 ; Shuvaev c. Grèce, no 8249/07, § 39, 29 octobre 2009 ; et Vafiadis c. Grèce, no 24981/07, § 36, 2 juillet 2009) ou un manque total d'intimité dans les cellules (Szafransky c. Pologne, no 17249/12, §§ 39-41, 15 décembre 2015 ; Veniosov c. Ukraine, no 30634/05, § 36, 15 décembre 2011 ; Mustafayev c. Ukraine, no 36433/05, § 32, 13 octobre 2011 ; Belevitski c. Russie, no 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1er mars 2007 ; Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 106-107, CEDH 2005-X (extraits) ; et Novosselov c. Russie, no 66460/01, §§ 32 et 40-43, 2 juin 2005).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 67413/01

  GULTYAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  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, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04

  ZAKHARKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found that such factors as access to natural light or air, adequacy of heating arrangements, compliance with basic sanitary requirements, the opportunity to use the toilet in private and the availability of ventilation are relevant to the assessment of whether the acceptable threshold of suffering or degradation has been exceeded (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, 23.07.2020 - 29760/15

  LAUTARU ET SEED c. GRÈCE

  Aussi, dans pareilles affaires, la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 dès lors que le manque d'espace s'accompagnait d'autres mauvaises conditions matérielles de détention, telles qu'un manque de ventilation et de lumière (Torreggiani et autres, précité, § 69, voir également Moisseiev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 124-27, 9 octobre 2008, Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, § 84, 12 juin 2008 ; et Babouchkine c. Russie, no 67253/01, § 44, 18 octobre 2007), un accès limité à la promenade en plein air (István Gábor Kovács c. Hongrie, no 15707/10, § 26, 17 janvier 2012, Efremidze c. Grèce, no 33225/08, § 38, 21 juin 2011, Yevgeniy Alekseyenko c. Russie, no 41833/04, §§ 88-89, 27 janvier 2011, Gladkiy c. Russie, no 3242/03, § 69, 21 décembre 2010, Shuvaev c. Grèce, no 8249/07, § 39, 29 octobre 2009, et Vafiadis c. Grèce, no 24981/07, § 36, 2 juillet 2009) ou un manque total d'intimité dans les cellules (Szafransky c. Pologne, no 17249/12, §§ 39-41, 15 décembre 2015, Veniosov c. Ukraine, no 30634/05, § 36, 15 décembre 2011, Mustafayev c. Ukraine, no 36433/05, § 32, 13 octobre 2011, Belevitski c. Russie, no 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1er mars 2007, Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 106-107, CEDH 2005-X (extraits), et Novosselov c. Russie, no 66460/01, §§ 32 et 40-43, 2 juin 2005).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  MANULIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09

  POPANDOPULO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 10638/08

  ALEKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  KOMISSAROVA v. RUSSIA