Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VIDISH v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 53120/08

  The Court reiterates at the outset that it is an essential part of a detainee's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him in maintaining contact with his close family because during imprisonment a detainee continues to enjoy all fundamental rights and freedoms, save for the right to liberty (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 106 and 116, ECHR 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 53120/08

  The 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 v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 55470/00

  FERLA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 53120/08

  The Court has thus frequently found that limitations on frequency and duration of family visits, supervision over those visits and subjection of a detainee to special visiting arrangements constitute an interference with the applicants" rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470/00, § 38, 20 May 2008, and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 69, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 53120/08

  The Court reiterates that interference with Article 8 of the Convention rights must be "in accordance with the law", pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in Article 8 § 2 and, in addition, be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 179, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 53120/08

  The Court observes at the outset that opening the letter addressed to the applicant constituted interference with his right to respect for his correspondence (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 197, 22 May 2012, and Demirtepe v. France, no. 34821/97, § 26, ECHR 1999-IX (extracts)).

• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 3468/20

  SUBASI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  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 Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, § 23, 18 December 2018, with further references to 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; Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470/00, § 38, 20 May 2008; and Vidish v. Russia, no. 53120/08, § 36, 15 March 2016).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 9348/14

  RESIN v. RUSSIA

  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; Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470/00, § 38, 20 May 2008; and Vidish v. Russia, no. 53120/08, § 36, 15 March 2016).