Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-3-b No violation of Art. 6-3-c (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (22)

• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  In Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 98 et seq., 25 October 2007) the Court held that delays of forty and sixty-seven days constituted a breach of Article 5 § 4 as far as the appeal proceedings were concerned.

  In another case (Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 98 et seq., 25 October 2007) the Court held that delays of forty and sixty-seven days constituted a breach of Article 5 § 4 as far as the appeal proceedings were concerned.

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  In this connection, regard must be had to the vulnerability of the complainant and his or her susceptibility to influence exerted by the authorities (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  In Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III), it took the domestic courts five months to examine an application for release.

 
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  However, despite these arguments, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 4. In Samy v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 36499/97, 4 December 2001), concerning the detention of aliens for the purposes of expulsion, the Court found that a period of twenty-five days was compatible with Article 5 § 4. By contrast, in Rehbock v. Slovenia (no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII) the Court found that the application for release had been examined twenty-three days after it had been lodged with the first-instance court, and that that was not a "speedy" examination as required by Article 5 § 4. A delay of seventeen days has also been declared incompatible with this provision (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 43, 9 January 2003).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  What the State must do under this provision is to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of 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 Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII.).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  Thus, the overcrowding did not go beyond the design capacity of the remand prison (see, by contrast, Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, § 89, 15 November 2007, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  KADEM v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  However, despite these arguments, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 4. In Samy v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 36499/97, 4 December 2001), concerning the detention of aliens for the purposes of expulsion, the Court found that a period of twenty-five days was compatible with Article 5 § 4. By contrast, in Rehbock v. Slovenia (no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII) the Court found that the application for release had been examined twenty-three days after it had been lodged with the first-instance court, and that that was not a "speedy" examination as required by Article 5 § 4. A delay of seventeen days has also been declared incompatible with this provision (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 43, 9 January 2003).
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  That list is not exhaustive; other conditions of detention may lead the Court to the conclusion that the applicant was subjected to "inhuman or degrading treatment" (see, for example, Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 68, 25 October 2005; Trepashkin (no. 1), cited above, § 94; and Slyusarev v. Russia, no. 60333/00, § 36, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  At the outset the Court notes that its case-law does not require that hearings on the lawfulness of pre-trial detention should be public (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  Before embarking on an analysis of that period the Court would observe that it 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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

  GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 27603/15

  JATSÕSÕN v. ESTONIA

  Only a comprehensive approach to the particular conditions can provide an accurate picture of the reality for the person being transported (see, for example, M.S., cited above, §§ 74-75, where the Court also considered the frequency and the duration of trips; Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 2), no. 14248/05, §§ 132-136, 16 December 2010, where account was taken of the duration and number of trips, whether the design capacity of the prison van was complied with, and the opportunity prisoners had to exercise and have a decent meal on transfer days; Yakovenko, cited above, §§ 108-112, where the Court noted the frequency and number of trips and that the compartments were poorly lit and insufficiently ventilated; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 117-119, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), where two prisoners had to take turns sitting on each other's lap in a compartment of 1 square metre, and the applicant was transported in that van no fewer than 200 times during four years of detention).