Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of ...

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; and Ilijkov, cited above, § 81).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  Further factors include the purpose for which the treatment was inflicted together with the intention or motivation behind it (see, for instance, Aksoy, cited above, § 64; Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 78, ECHR 2000-XII; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004), as well as its context, such as an atmosphere of heightened tension and emotions (see, for instance, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 104, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  The Court has considered treatment to be "inhuman" because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV, and Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 118, ECHR 2006-IX).

 
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  Further factors include the purpose for which the treatment was inflicted together with the intention or motivation behind it (see, for instance, Aksoy, cited above, § 64; Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 78, ECHR 2000-XII; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004), as well as its context, such as an atmosphere of heightened tension and emotions (see, for instance, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 104, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  Treatment has been held to be "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance, or when it was such as to drive the victim to act against his will or conscience (see, inter alia, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 110, ECHR 2001-III, and Jalloh, cited above, § 68).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  The Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law, an application for a supervisory review in the context of criminal proceedings in Russia has so far not been considered as a remedy to be exhausted under Article 35 § 1 (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR, 17 September 2003).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25, and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56308/00

  TOSHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  However, since under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention failure to comply with domestic law may entail a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, § 58, 10 August 2006, and Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, §§ 89 and 94, 18 June 2009).
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  IGNATOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  In particular, the Court has held that the absence of any grounds given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1. Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific limit on the duration of that detention would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see also Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, §§ 45-47, 9 July 2009; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 112-14, 25 June 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 112-14, 23 April 2009; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 79-81, 24 May 2007; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; and Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02

  GUBKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04

  AVDEYEV AND VERYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  ZUBKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes in this connection that, according to its constant practice, an application for a supervisory review in the context of criminal proceedings has so far not been considered as a remedy to be exhausted under Article 35 § 1 (see, among many others, Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Maayevy v. Russia, no. 7964/07, § 81, 24 May 2011; and Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 125, 24 April 2012).
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  ALLAHVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court reiterates in this connection that court decisions extending detention without any reasoning are contrary to Article 5 of the Convention (compare Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 130, 24 April 2012, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 71333/10

  LAVRENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already rejected similar arguments in cases where such appeal would be devoid of any purpose (see Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, §§ 90-91, 24 April 2012, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 42282/06

  MARKELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Similarly, the absence of any grounds or the time-limits given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 70-71, 2 March 2006; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008; Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, §§ 129-131, 24 April 2012).
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 68817/14

  YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Having regard to the parties" submissions and all the material in its possession, the Court considers that the evidence before it does not enable it to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants were subjected to ill-treatment as alleged (see Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, §§ 103-04, 24 April 2012, and contrast Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 94-95, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 16120/07

  GORBATENKO AND SHEYDYAKOV v. RUSSIA

  It held that the absence of any grounds given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008; Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 131, 24 April 2012).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 54611/18

  RAGIMOVY v. RUSSIA

  Given a considerable lapse of time and the noted defects of the decisions to dispense with an investigation, an appeal to a court could only have the same effect and would be devoid of any purpose (see Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 91, 24 April 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 9536/10

  FEDORIN v. RUSSIA

  However, the Court has repeatedly held that, although the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in assessing the risk of an accused absconding or reoffending, the need to continue the deprivation of liberty cannot be assessed from a purely abstract point of view, taking into consideration only the gravity of the offence (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 180, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 159, 24 April 2012).