Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POLONSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where the effectiveness of the official investigation is at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV).

  As the Court has stated on many occasions, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV).

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 38321/97

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  However, it has already found, in similar circumstances, that the complexity of the case, the number or the conduct of the defendants could not justify more than five years" detention pending investigation and trial (see Erdem v. Germany, no. 38321/97, § 46, ECHR 2001-VII).

 
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 99 et seq.; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... ; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 99 et seq.; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... ; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 99 et seq.; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... ; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  The Court considers that a person alleging a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention with respect to the length of his detention complains of a continuing situation which should be considered as a whole and not divided into separate periods in the manner suggested by the Government (see, mutatis mutandis, Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 29 and 37, ECHR 2007-... ).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  LASZKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime, involving numerous defendants, the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 6884/11

  Polizeigewalt bei G8 in Genua 2001: Italien verurteilt

  Dans certaines affaires, les faits de la cause ont amené la Cour à estimer que les mauvais traitements en question devaient bien être qualifiés de « torture'après avoir appliqué conjointement les deux critères susmentionnés, à savoir la gravité des souffrances et la volonté délibérée (voir, par exemple, Aksoy c. Turquie, 18 décembre 1996, §§ 63-64, Recueil 1996-VI: le requérant avait été soumis à la « pendaison palestinienne'pour qu'il avoue et qu'il livre des informations ; Bati et autres, précité, §§ 110, 122-124: les requérants avaient été privés de sommeil et soumis à la « pendaison palestinienne ", à des jets d'eau, à des coups répétés et au supplice de la falaka pendant plusieurs jours, pour qu'ils avouent leur appartenance à un parti politique ; Abdülsamet Yaman c. Turquie, no 32446/96, §§ 19-20, 2 novembre 2004: le requérant avait été soumis à la « pendaison palestinienne ", à des jets d'eau et à des électrochocs pendant plusieurs jours pour qu'il passe aux aveux ; Polonskiy c. Russie, no 30033/05, § 124, 19 mars 2009: le requérant avait été frappé plusieurs fois et à divers endroits du corps, et soumis à des électrochocs pour qu'il avoue un délit - il convient de remarquer que la Cour a conclu à la « torture'même en l'absence de séquelles physiques de longue durée ; Kopylov, précité, §§ 125-126: pour qu'il avouât un délit, le requérant avait été suspendu au moyen d'une corde avec les mains liées dans le dos, matraqué, tabassé et soumis, pendant quatre mois environ, à plusieurs autres sévices, ce qui a entraîné des séquelles graves et irréversibles ; El-Masri, précité, §§ 205-211: le requérant avait été roué de coups, déshabillé de force et soumis à l'administration de force d'un suppositoire, puis enchaîné et encapuchonné avant d'être traîné de force jusqu'à un avion, où il avait été jeté à terre, attaché et mis de force sous sédatifs ; selon la Cour, l'ensemble de ces traitements, perpétrés dans le cadre d'une « remise extraordinaire ", visait à obtenir des renseignements de l'intéressé, à le punir ou à l'intimider).
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 37966/07

  ANTAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 21272/03

  SAKHNOVSKI c. RUSSIE

  Cela vaut également pour la plupart des garanties de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (avec quelques exceptions concernant, entre autres, l'exigence du délai raisonnable ou l'accès à un tribunal - voir, par exemple, Polonski c. Russie, no 30033/05, §§ 160 et suiv., 19 mars 2009 ; Kart c. Turquie [GC], no 8917/05, §§ 71 et suiv., 3 décembre 2009 ; voir également, dans le contexte d'une procédure civile, Mihajlovic c. Croatie, no 21752/02, §§ 26 et suiv., 7 juillet 2005).

 
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 26824/04

  KELLER v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to its conclusions above under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009; Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010; and Suleymanov v. Russia, no. 32501/11, § 157, 22 January 2013).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 32501/11

  SULEYMANOV v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 36552/05

  ZAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Le requérant cite plusieurs arrêts de la Cour dans lesquels ce défaut a été constaté (Antipenkov, précité, § 68, Mikheyev, précité, § 114, et Polonski c. Russie, no 30033/05, § 112, 19 mars 2009).
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  KOPYLOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Aydın v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83-84 and 86, Reports 1997-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006-...; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006; and Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 124, 19 March 2009).
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  KALININ v. RUSSIA

  If the applicant is still in pre-trial detention on the date of examination of his complaint by the Court, the Court is competent to examine the State's compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 in respect of the detention period up until the judgment date (see Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 89, 5 February 2013; Sahap DoÄ?an v. Turkey, no. 29361/07, § 26, 27 May 2010; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 144, 19 March 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 121, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 31939/06

  ALEKSAKHIN v. UKRAINE

  The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the above complaints fall to be examined solely under Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs (see, mutatis mutandis, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, §§ 126-127, 19 March 2009, and contrast Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, §§ 89-93, ECHR 2000-VII), which reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 18280/04

  SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09

  YUGAY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 57215/09

  BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07

  MAKHASHEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

  CHUDUN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33579/04

  BOROTYUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 46219/12 (anhängig)

  MAKSIMOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 53373/14 (anhängig)

  ZHDAN v. RUSSIA