Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOZHOKAR v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domesic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 13 Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  Nor does the "authority" referred to in that provision necessarily have to be a judicial authority; but if it is not, its powers and the guarantees which it affords are relevant in determining whether the remedy before it is effective (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  Further, having regard to the "close affinity" between Article 13 and Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Kudla, cited above, § 152), the notion of "effective" remedy has the same meaning in both provisions (see, mutatis mutandis, Davenport v. Portugal (dec.), no. 57862/00, 20 January 2000).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 57862/00

  DAVENPORT v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  Further, having regard to the "close affinity" between Article 13 and Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Kudla, cited above, § 152), the notion of "effective" remedy has the same meaning in both provisions (see, mutatis mutandis, Davenport v. Portugal (dec.), no. 57862/00, 20 January 2000).

 
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  The Court has held on many occasions that the lack of appropriate medical care may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see, for example, Wenerski v. Poland, no. 44369/02, §§ 56 to 65, 20 January 2009; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 210 to 213 and 231 to 237, 13 July 2006; and Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 100-106, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  The Court has held on many occasions that the lack of appropriate medical care may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see, for example, Wenerski v. Poland, no. 44369/02, §§ 56 to 65, 20 January 2009; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 210 to 213 and 231 to 237, 13 July 2006; and Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 100-106, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  The Court reiterates that although Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 93, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX; and Kudla, cited above, § 94).

• EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  Konstantin Markin ./. Russland

  As to the examples of cases where parental leave was granted to servicemen, the Court notes that only one such example was provided by the Government (see paragraph 117 above) and this does not suffice, in the Court's view, to show the existence of settled domestic practice (see, for a similar approach, Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, § 93, 16 December 2010, and Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Ce surpeuplement a fait que la détention de l'intéressé n'était pas conforme au standard minimal, tel qu'exposé dans la jurisprudence de la Cour, de 3 m2 par personne (voir, parmi de nombreux autres précédents, Trepachkine c. Russie (no 2), no 14248/05, § 113, 16 décembre 2010 ; Kozhokar c. Russie, no 33099/08, § 96, 16 décembre 2010 ; Svetlana Kazmina c. Russie, no 609/04, § 70, 2 décembre 2010).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 34728/06

  CHIRYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Since its first judgment concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities and an excessive length of pre-trial detention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI), the Court found similar violations in many cases against Russia (see, in general, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; and also, as regards the conditions of detention obtaining in the IZ-71/1 remand prison at the material time, Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 95-98, 16 December 2010, and Shcherbakov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 34959/07, §§ 67-74, 24 October 2013).