Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAVLOVA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PAVLOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 18255/10

  TOMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 8578/12

  The existence of a structural deficiency which - in the absence of effective domestic remedies - forces large groups of people to seek redress in the Court for repetitive violations of their Convention rights, is a relevant consideration for deciding whether the Court should continue examination of the case (see Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 98-100, 9 April 2019).
• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 39758/05

  TROSIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 8578/12

  This principle applies a fortiori to untried prisoners who must be considered innocent by virtue of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-17, ECHR 2015, and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-36, 13 February 2018).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 8578/12

  This principle applies a fortiori to untried prisoners who must be considered innocent by virtue of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-17, ECHR 2015, and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-36, 13 February 2018).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 29920/05

  GERASIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 8578/12

  29920/05 and 10 others, § 130, 1 July 2014; and Jeronovics v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, §§ 64-71, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  ANDREY SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 8578/12

  This principle applies a fortiori to untried prisoners who must be considered innocent by virtue of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-17, ECHR 2015, and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-36, 13 February 2018).

• EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 12166/19

  ZHDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-110, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, §§ 21-33, 18 February 2020, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 11278/19

  TRANDA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement in a metal cage during court hearings; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, concerning inadequate conditions of post-conviction detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Tomov and Others, cited above, §§ 92-156, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaints about inadequate conditions of transport; and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, §§ 29-33, 18 February 2020, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect).
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 12205/18

  PONOMAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, §§ 31-33, 18 February 2020, as regards the lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits; and Chaldayev, cited above, §§ 69-83, related to discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre-trial detention facilities).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 56727/18

  KAYUMOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lengthy review of detention; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement in a metal cage during court hearings; Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, §§ 29-33, 18 February 2020, as regards the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities, Chaldayev, cited above, §§ 69-83, related to discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Alekhin v. Russia, no. 10638/08, §§ 146-55, 30 July 2009, regarding the lack of compensation in relation to a delay in examination of an appeal against an extension detention order).
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 41090/18

  RESIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, related to discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre-trial detention facilities).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 82939/17

  TAKÓ AND VISZTNÉ ZÁMBÓ v. HUNGARY

  Moreover, the State does not have a free hand in introducing restrictions in a general manner without affording any degree of flexibility for determining whether the limitations are appropriate or indeed necessary in specific cases (see Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, § 54, 13 February 2018, and Korablevy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 32627/17 and 2 others, § 11, 15 September 2022; see also, mutatis mutandis, Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, § 24, 18 February 2020).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 24453/17

  YELISTRATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  53404/18 and 3 others, §§ 39-42, 14 December 2021 and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, §§ 31-33, 18 February 2020, as regards restrictions on family visits in the remand prison and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard.
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 17010/18

  SUNGATOV v. RUSSIA

  18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards inadequate conditions of transport; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 32-57, 13 February 2018 and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, as regards family visits in prison.
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 2113/20

  BRITVIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport; and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, as regards restrictions on family visits.