|EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04|
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
POPOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. ... 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c+6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d+6 Abs. 1 MRK
No violation of Art. 6-2 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-3-c+6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-d+6-1 Violations of Art. 3 Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 Not necessary to examine other complaint under Art. 34 Remainder inadmissible ...
Wird zitiert von ... (204)
- EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09
Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher SeeIn certain particular situations, however, the Court may find it useful to indicate to the respondent State the type of measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the - often systemic - situation that gave rise to the finding of a violation (see, for example, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v Russia, no. 26853/04, § 263, 13 July 2006).
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIAThe State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla, cited above, §§ 92-94, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, 13 July 2006 (IZ-77/1, Moscow, 2002-2004).
- EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
PISHCHALNIKOV v. RUSSIAThe Court firstly notes that in the present case it has found a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1. Inasmuch as the applicant's claim relates to the finding of that violation, the Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).