Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FIRSTOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Firstov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  The Court has no doubt that the domestic courts in the present case, with every desire to be just and eminently reasonable, attempted to assess the cumulative effect which the conditions of detention had had on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and to determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicant by reason of his detention in those conditions (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  However, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the amount of RUB 500 awarded for an aggregate period of a month on twenty-three occasions of detention, that is, a rate of approximately RUB 16 per day, was disproportionately lower than the damages that it generally awards in comparable Russian cases (see, for example, Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, 16 June 2005, and Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, 21 June 2007).
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  These include also the value of the award judged in the light of the standard of living and the general level of incomes in the State concerned, and the fact that a remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than an application to the Court (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 206 and 268, and Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004, with further references).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  However, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the amount of RUB 500 awarded for an aggregate period of a month on twenty-three occasions of detention, that is, a rate of approximately RUB 16 per day, was disproportionately lower than the damages that it generally awards in comparable Russian cases (see, for example, Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, 16 June 2005, and Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, 21 June 2007).
• EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

  NARDONE c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  The Court has no doubt that the domestic courts in the present case, with every desire to be just and eminently reasonable, attempted to assess the cumulative effect which the conditions of detention had had on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and to determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicant by reason of his detention in those conditions (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).

• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 58240/08

  SARISHVILI-BOLKVADZE v. GEORGIA

  Conversely, it has found that a disproportionately lower award of non-pecuniary damages than the damages that the Court generally awards in comparable cases may be insufficient and manifestly unreasonable (see, mutatis mutandis, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, §§ 35 and 38, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 25516/12

  BIZJAK v. SLOVENIA

  Such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions, and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V, and Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 36, 20 February 2014).

 
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 35861/11

  KEKELASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  At the same time, the Court has also held on a number of occasions that a wider margin of appreciation should be left to the domestic courts when assessing the level of compensation (see, for instance, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V, and Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 36, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06

  SVITLANA ATAMANYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 1227/06

  GAVRYLOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Those considerations include the domestic legal system and legal traditions in the respondent State, the standard of living and the general level of incomes in the State concerned, and the fact that a remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than one sought through an application to the Court (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 206 and 268, CEDH 2006-V; Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004; Firstov, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; and Simanovics v. Latvia, no. 55047/12, (dec.), 18 November 2014).
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  MINDROVA v. UKRAINE

  In fact, there is no standard by which pain and suffering, psychological distress and anguish can be measured in terms of money (see, for example, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 35, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 42139/05

  VORONINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, the redress awarded to him by the Russian courts was insufficient and manifestly unreasonable having regard to the Court's case-law (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 204, ECHR 2006-V, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, §§ 38-39, 20 February 2014 and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 70-79, 17 December 2009) and taking into account the absence of a reasonable relation of proportionality between the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant and the circumstances of the case and the domestic courts" reasoning in making the award.