Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.B. v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  It requires at the same time that any deprivation of liberty be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 54, Series A no. 111, and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  It requires at the same time that any deprivation of liberty be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 54, Series A no. 111, and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  The Court further reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  The domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular the question of whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  Referring to the aforementioned general principles relating to the prohibition of ill-treatment (see paragraph 99 above), the Court further reiterates that, although Article 3 cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds save in exceptional cases (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI, and Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001), the lack of appropriate medical treatment in prison may in itself raise an issue under Article 3, even if the applicant's state of health does not require his immediate release.
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  The Court further reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 66231/14

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Lastly, the Court has found that such a remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities, which was extremely improbable in a situation where domestic legal norms prescribed the application of a certain measure, for instance certain conditions of detention or a certain level of medical treatment (see A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, § 96, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 13817/05

  AKSENOV v. RUSSIA

  The relevant provisions of domestic law and international reports and documents governing the health care of detainees are set out in the following judgments: A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 77-84, 14 October 2010; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, §§ 60-66 and 73-80, 27 January 2011; and Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, §§ 33-39 and 42-48, 30 September 2011.
• EGMR - 62151/10 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law is summarised in the case A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 74-80, 14 October 2010.