Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KIM v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Kim v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KIM v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  It should thus be left to the Committee of Ministers to supervise, on the basis of the information provided by the respondent State and with due regard to the applicant's evolving situation, the adoption of such measures that are feasible, timely, adequate and sufficient to ensure the maximum possible reparation for the violations found by the Court (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 255, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  With a view, however, to helping the respondent State fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and/or general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 255, 17 January 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, ECHR 2009; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  In that connection, the Court considers that general measures at the national level are undoubtedly called for in the execution of the present judgment (see Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 125, ECHR 2007-V (extracts), and Louled Massoud, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  With a view, however, to helping the respondent State fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and/or general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 255, 17 January 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, ECHR 2009; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V).

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Merits The case of K.J. 92. K.J. relied on the violations found by the Court in Azimov v. Russia (cited above, §§ 152 and 171-73); Kim v. Russia (no. 44260/13, §§ 41-57, 17 July 2014); and A.N. and Others v. Russia ([Committee], no. 61689/16 and 3 others, § 34, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 11556/17

  MAINOV v. RUSSIA

  For relevant provisions of the domestic law and practice, see Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 23-25, 17 July 2014.

  Nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicant complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (compare with the Court's findings in respect of the same detention facility at the relevant period of time, Mskhiladze v. Russia, no. 47741/16, §§ 38-39, 13 February 2018, and contrast with the Court's findings in respect of a previous period, Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 17-22, 31-35, 17 July 2014, and M.S.A. and Others v. Russia, no. 29957/14 and 8 others, § 58, 12 December 2017).

• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 47741/16

  MSKHILADZE v. RUSSIA

  In May 2016 the Russian authorities submitted a communication to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (Action Plan, DH-DD(2015)527) relating to the execution of the Court's judgment in Kim v. Russia (no. 44260/13, §§ 41-57 and 68-74, 17 July 2014).

  The Court observes that the applicant did not allege that he had been kept at the relevant time in severely overcrowded conditions resulting, for instance, in him not having an individual sleeping place and having to take it in turns to sleep (see, by contrast, Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 18-19 and 41-57, 17 July 2014 concerning the same detention facility in 2013, and Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 199, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  N.K. v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Articles 3 and 5 § 4 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012; Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 31-35 and 39-45, 17 July 2014; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; and Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30044/10, § 80, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR - 30831/15 (anhängig)

  RAZGOVOROV v. RUSSIA

  Was the applicant's detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant's removal a realistic prospect and did the authorities pursue the proceedings with due diligence (see Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, 17 July 2014)?.
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 55080/12

  CHANTURIDZE v. RUSSIA

  Further aspects of the applicant's detention which, taken cumulatively with the problem of overcrowding, the Court considers incompatible with the protection against inhuman and degrading treatment are the lack of in-cell running water supply, the extremely cramped courtyards and the complete absence of any meaningful activities, whether inside or outside the cell (see Dimitrov and Ribov v. Bulgaria, no. 34846/08, § 37, 17 November 2015, and Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, § 31, 17 July 2014).