Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDREY SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (29)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  VARNAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  That being so, it also observes that Article 10 § 2 (a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires, in particular, that accused persons should, save in exceptional circumstances, be subject to a separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons who enjoy the right to be presumed innocent (see Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, §§ 71-72, 9 July 2013).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  As is well established in the Court's case-law, on imprisonment a person forfeits the right to liberty but continues to enjoy all other fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to respect for family life, so that any restriction on those rights must be justified in each individual case (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-17, ECHR 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 39758/05

  TROSIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  This principle applies a fortiori to untried prisoners who must be considered innocent by virtue of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000-X; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 139, 28 November 2002; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; and Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, no. 37862/02, §§ 60-66, 29 May 2012).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 55470/00

  FERLA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  The Court has thus found that limitations on the frequency and duration of family visits, supervision of those visits and the subjection of a detainee to special visiting arrangements constitute an interference with the applicants" rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 69, ECHR 2003-II; Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, 17 July 2007; and Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470/00, § 38, 20 May 2008).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  This principle applies a fortiori to untried prisoners who must be considered innocent by virtue of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000-X; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 139, 28 November 2002; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; and Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, no. 37862/02, §§ 60-66, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  A justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities and the requirement to give "relevant and sufficient" reasons applies from the moment when a judge examines for the first time the necessity of placing the suspect in pre-trial detention (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 92-102, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Zherebin, cited above, § 61; and compare with Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004, in which the applicant's pre-trial detention lasted four months and fourteen days).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  It was incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 to use detention either as a form of punishment for his decision to exercise the right not to incriminate himself or to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207, and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 145, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  This principle applies a fortiori to untried prisoners who must be considered innocent by virtue of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000-X; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 139, 28 November 2002; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; and Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, no. 37862/02, §§ 60-66, 29 May 2012).

• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 36904/19

  BUTYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  2653/13 and 60980/14, § 126, 4 October 2016, concerning placement of applicants in a metal cage or in a glass cabin in courtrooms; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 51-56, 13 February 2018, and Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18 December 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in prison; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.

  8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - refusal of long-term family visits (Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18 December 2018, and Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, §§ 43 54, 9 June 2020), physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits (Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 51-56, 13 February 2018),.

• EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 33610/18

  TRETYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 3018/22

  GRINEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, related to the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Kruglov and Others v. Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 51551/18

  FATTAKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, related to the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 56727/18

  KAYUMOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In the leading cases of Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, 18 December 2018, Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, 28 May 2019, Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020, and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos.

  43149/10,.

• EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 35012/19

  LUKASHCHUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 41539/18

  GALEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101-11, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, 13 February 2018, Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, 18 December 2018, Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, 28 May 2019, Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020, and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 07.03.2019 - 21763/14

  SZEKERES AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Bandur v. Hungary (no. 50130/12, § 84, 5 July 2016), as regards application no. 5818/15, and Khoroshenko v. Russia ([GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 148-49, ECHR 2015) and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia (no. 43149/10, § 57, 13 February 2018), as regards application no. 30197/15.

  According to the Court's well-established case-law in this field, this amounts to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 148-49, ECHR 2015, and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, § 57, 13 February 2018).

• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 5136/19

  LEBED AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101-11, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Idalov, cited above, §§ 154-58, concerning lengthy review of detention; and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities).
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 12205/18

  PONOMAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In the leading cases of Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, 13 February 2018, Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, 18 December 2018, Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, 28 May 2019, Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020, and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 51892/19

  CHERNOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2023 - 56247/15

  KASHUBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2023 - 11590/17

  CHASHCHUKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 51678/15

  PETERMAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 10753/21

  TEPLJAKOV v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2023 - 38521/16

  KLYACHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 82939/17

  TAKÓ AND VISZTNÉ ZÁMBÓ v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 33172/16

  CHALDAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 50599/16 (anhängig)

  CHAPODZE v. RUSSIA and 10 other applications
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 3468/20

  SUBASI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 63748/13

  PSHIBIYEV ET BEROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 17010/18

  SUNGATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 35245/19

  KALDA v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 8578/12

  PAVLOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 47537/11

  SKOROBOGATOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 39095/17

  PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 48884/19

  KATASONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14

  MIRGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN AND TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 70468/17

  KUNGUROV v. RUSSIA