Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TROSIN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 34 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Trosin v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 39758/05
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 39758/05

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 39758/05

  The Court considers that regulation of such issues may not amount to inflexible restrictions and the States are expected to develop their proportionality assessment technique enabling the authorities to balance the competing individual and public interests and to take into account peculiarities of each individual case (see, mutatis mutandis, Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, §§ 82-85, ECHR 2007-V).

• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  YAROSHOVETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  However, it is an essential part of a detainee's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him, in maintaining contact with his close family (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015, and Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  ANDREY SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA

  This principle applies a fortiori to untried prisoners who must be considered innocent by virtue of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000-X; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 139, 28 November 2002; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; and Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, no. 37862/02, §§ 60-66, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 8578/12

  PAVLOVA v. RUSSIA

  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, 18.12.2018 - 9348/14

  RESIN v. RUSSIA

  However, it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him to maintain contact with his close family (see Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012, and Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-17, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 13311/10

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  However, it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him in maintaining contact with his close family (see, among many other authorities, Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 59-74, ECHR 2000 X; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, §§ 139-43, 28 November 2002; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 165-74, 18 January 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 120-27, 12 June 2008; Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 243-59, 9 October 2008; Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, §§ 32-47, 23 February 2012; Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 85-149, 30 June 2015).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63763/11

  ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  However, it is an essential part of a detainee's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him, in maintaining contact with his close family (see Moiseyev, cited above, § 246 and Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR - 10761/16 (anhängig)

  YENOKYAN v. ARMENIA

  Did the limitation of the applicant's family visits, as well as the manner of conduct of those visits (in particular (a) the conditions in which long visits were held, namely lack of windows, adequate ventilation, lighting and fresh air in the visiting room (b) duration of short visits and (c) separation by a glass partition during short visits) in Nubarashen remand prison breach his right to family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 148, ECHR 2015, and Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, §§ 42-46, 23 February 2012)?.
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 70468/17

  KUNGUROV v. RUSSIA

  However, it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him to maintain contact with his close family (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, 06.06.2019 - 34345/10

  BELYAYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court also recalls that such blanket restrictions as limitations imposed on the number of family visits, supervision over those visits and, if so justified by the nature of the offence, subjection of a detainee to a special prison regime or special visit arrangements without any individual risk assessment constitute an interference with his or her rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see, for instance, Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015; and Bigun v. Ukraine [CTE], no. 30315/10, §§ 33, 44 and 49, 21 March 2019).
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 29826/15

  MICHNO v. LITHUANIA

  However, it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or her or, if need be, assist him or her in maintaining contact with his or her close family (see, among many other authorities, Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, no. 37862/02, § 61, 29 May 2012; and Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015).