Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE AND UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) (Ukraine);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  Nevertheless, after Merabishvili and in the absence of a claim that this aspect of the case is fundamental, there is nothing to induce the Court to deviate in this case from its settled practice, which is not to engage with questions that it has already examined under other provisions of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  In certain circumstances, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among other authorities, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  In certain circumstances, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among other authorities, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-IV).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention where the effectiveness of the official investigation has been 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).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  Where the defendants are detained, the conditions of their detention, transport, catering and other similar arrangements are relevant factors to consider in this respect (see, for example, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, §§ 70 and 89, Series A no. 146; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 81, 20 January 2005; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 221-22, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

  FÁBER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  The guarantees of Article 11 of the Convention therefore apply to all gatherings except those where the organisers and participants have such intentions, incite violence or otherwise reject the foundations of a democratic society (see Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 45, 23 October 2008; Alekseyev v. Russia, nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, § 80, 21 October 2010; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 37, 24 July 2012; Gün and Others v. Turkey, no. 8029/07, § 49, 18 June 2013; Taranenko, cited above, § 66; Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, § 92; and Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  Noting that the domestic courts examined them in adversarial proceedings in which the applicants were able to scrutinise and challenge the impugned evidence, the Court is not required to substitute its own assessment of the content and the probative value of these recordings for that of the domestic courts, or to call into question the facts established on the basis of them (see, inter alia, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269, and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 169, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  Consideration has been given to the opening of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurta?Ÿ v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV) and the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  The Court has consistently held that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (ibid., § 119; see also Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 47, Series A no. 154).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 8029/07

  GÜN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  The guarantees of Article 11 of the Convention therefore apply to all gatherings except those where the organisers and participants have such intentions, incite violence or otherwise reject the foundations of a democratic society (see Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 45, 23 October 2008; Alekseyev v. Russia, nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, § 80, 21 October 2010; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 37, 24 July 2012; Gün and Others v. Turkey, no. 8029/07, § 49, 18 June 2013; Taranenko, cited above, § 66; Kudrevicius and Others, cited above, § 92; and Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 42921/09

  FELDMAN v. UKRAINE (NO. 2)
• EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13

  KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 28403/05

  VINTMAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.04.2019 - 48798/14

  GUIMON c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95

  STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04

  SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  TARANENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 4916/07

  Alexejew ./. Russland
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 39371/20

  DUARTE AGOSTINHO ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL ET 32 AUTRES

  Cette approche cadre avec celle adoptée par la Cour dans des affaires où les violations alléguées de droits protégés par la Convention engageaient la responsabilité conjointe de plusieurs États, chacun d'entre eux pouvant avoir à rendre des comptes à raison de sa part de responsabilité dans la violation en question (voir, par exemple, Razvozzhayev c. Russie et Ukraine et Udaltsov c. Russie, nos 75734/12 et 2 autres, § 160, 19 novembre 2019).
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 75186/12

  Russland muss Nawalny Entschädigung zahlen

  The background facts relating to the planning, conduct and dispersal of the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square are set out in more detail in Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, §§ 7-65, 5 January 2016); Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia (nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 7-33, 4 October 2016); and Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and Udaltsov v. Russia (nos. 75734/12 and 2 others, §§ 8-31, 19 November 2019).

  In particular, as regards the first applicant, his taking part in the sit-in and the calls to the protesters to stay on the site of the cancelled meeting did not demonstrate any violent intentions on his part (see Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and Udaltsov v. Russia, nos. 75734/12 and 2 others, § 285, 19 November 2019).

• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 37677/16

  ABDULLIN c. RUSSIE

  La Cour constate qu'il n'est pas contesté entre les parties que le maintien de la saisie des biens du requérant au-delà du prononcé du jugement de condamnation du 14 décembre 2015 a constitué une ingérence dans le droit de l'intéressé au respect de ses biens au sens de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1. Elle n'a pas de raisons d'en conclure autrement (voir, dans le même sens, Razvozzhayev c. Russie et Ukraine et Udaltsov c. Russie, nos 75734/12 et 2 autres, § 312, 19 novembre 2019).

  En ce qui concerne la sécurité juridique et la prévisibilité, les circonstances de la présente affaire sont différentes de celles des affaires antérieures mentionnées dans l'arrêt, y compris de celles de l'affaire Razvozzhayev c. Russie et Ukraine et Udaltsov c. Russie, nos 75734/12 et 2 autres, 19 novembre 2019.

 
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 25809/17

  NAVALNYY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Nothing suggests that he had shown any violent intentions or had called on the participants to engage in the acts of aggression (see, a contrario, Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and Udaltsov v. Russia, nos. 75734/12 and 2 others, § 284, 19 November 2019).
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 56896/17

  LAURIJSEN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Since it does not appear from the materials in the case file that the applicants - who must be presumed to have had peaceful intentions in the absence of sufficient and convincing evidence to the contrary (compare Karpyuk and Others, §§ 198-207, and Mushegh Saghatelyan, §§ 230-33, both cited above) - personally set off smoke bombs, threw objects or kicked out in the direction of the police, or otherwise resorted or incited to violence, the Court finds that the conduct during the gathering for which they were held responsible was not of such a nature and degree as to remove their participation in it from the scope of protection of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention (see, by contrast, Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and Udaltsov v. Russia, nos. 75734/12 and 2 others, § 284, 19 November 2019).
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 54363/17

  NARAYAN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Those issues are interlinked with the substance of the applicants' allegations and will be examined simultaneously with the related complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and Udaltsov v. Russia, nos. 75734/12 and 2 others, § 161, 19 November 2019, and Makuchyan and Minasyan, cited above, § 52).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 10613/10

  EKREM CAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  75734/12 and 2 others, § 285, 19 November 2019, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 37830/16

  G.T. c. GRÈCE

  Concernant ensuite le second refus, le procureur n'a pas pris en compte le fait que le requérant n'avait pas eu la possibilité de rendre visite à sa mère à l'hôpital avant son décès (voir, mutatis mutandis, Razvozzhayev c. Russie et Ukraine et Udaltsov c. Russie, nos 75734/12 et 2 autres, § 268, 19 novembre 2019).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 50956/15

  LEPESHKINA AND SHILOV v. RUSSIA

  Finally, the domestic courts did not analyse the prospect of applying more lenient preventive measures (compare with Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and Udaltsov v. Russia, nos. 75734/12 and 2 others, §§ 212-19, 19 November 2019).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 69829/11

  VERONICA CIOBANU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Un État peut ainsi être tenu responsable pour des violations des droits et libertés garantis par la Convention à l'égard des personnes qui, par le biais de ses agents opérant sur le territoire d'un autre État, se trouvaient sous son contrôle et son autorité (Razvozzhayev c. Russie et Ukraine et Udaltsov c. Russie, nos 75734/12 et 2 autres, § 158, 19 novembre 2019).