Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,40776
EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,40776)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.07.2008 - 41461/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,40776)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Juli 2008 - 41461/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,40776)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,40776) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
    Preliminary objections partially dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objections partially joined to merits and dismissed (victim) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d ...

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (33)

  • EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

    Gäfgen - Folter bei polizeilicher Vernehmung; Kindesentführung; Geständnis trotz

    Vorbringen nach Artikel 3 der Konvention muss der Gerichtshof besonders gründlich prüfen (siehe Matko ./. Slowenien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43393/98, Rdnr. 100, Urteil vom 2. November 2006, und Vladimir Romanov ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 41461/02, Rdnr. 59, 24. Juli 2008).
  • EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29896/14

    JEVTOVIC v. SERBIA

    The general legal prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would thus be ineffective in practice (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 78, 24 July 2008, and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 116 and 119, ECHR 2010).

    Nevertheless, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 63, 24 July 2008, and Habimi, cited above, § 86).

  • EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 33780/04

    KONONENKO v. RUSSIA

    The Court further reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 118, 24 July 2008; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).

    [1] See our joint concurring opinions appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).

  • EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 1111/02

    TROFIMOV v. RUSSIA

    In these circumstances, the Court should have reiterated - as it has done in other cases - that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position that he would have been in had the requirements of the provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 118, 24 July 2008; and Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia, no. 30997/02, § 219, 25 September 2008).

    On account of its importance, such reasoning should then have been included in the operative provisions as well, for reasons which I have already explained to a certain extent in other separate opinions (see for example, the joint concurring opinion I appended with Judge Malinverni to the Vladimir Romanov v. Russia judgment (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008) as well as my concurring opinion in Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia (no. 30997/02, 25 September 2008).

  • EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

    PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

    [1] See my joint concurring opinions with Judge Spielmann appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 4268/04

    PANOVITS c. CHYPRE

    We would, however, have liked the reasoning set out in paragraph 103 of the judgment, on account of its importance, to have been included in the operative provisions as well, for reasons which have already been explained to a certain extent in the joint concurring opinion of Judges Spielmann and Malinverni in Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, judgment of 24 July 2008) as well as the concurring opinion of Judge Spielmann in Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia (no. 30997/02, judgment of 25 September 2008) and most importantly in the concurring opinion of Judges Rozakis, Spielmann, Ziemele and Lazarova Trajovska in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008-...), and which are now repeated here.
  • EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

    ZLICIC v. SERBIA

    The general legal prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would thus be ineffective in practice (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 78, 24 July 2008; Gäfgen, cited above, §§ 116 and 119; and Jevtovic, cited above, § 61).
  • EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 55555/08

    LELAS v. CROATIA

    [1] See my joint concurring opinions with Judge Spielmann appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 32540/05

    VRBICA v. CROATIA

    [3] See my joint concurring opinions with Judge Spielmann appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 24655/18

    BARANIN AND VUKCEVIC v. MONTENEGRO

    The general legal prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would thus be ineffective in practice (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 78, 24 July 2008, and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 116 and 119, ECHR 2010).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

    MÎ?¢U v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

    CHORBADZHIYSKI AND KRASTEVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

    AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4570/07

    TRAMPEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  • EGMR - 54999/10 (anhängig)

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 840/18

    PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 2204/07

    GUKOVYCH v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 34588/07

    DARRAJ c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

    SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 36892/05

    N. B. gegen Deutschland

  • EGMR - 586/08 (anhängig)

    YANCHURKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 25406/08

    TOPALOGLU v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

    SINISTAJ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  • EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 54999/10

    MILIC ET NIKEZIC c. MONTÉNÉGRO

  • EGMR - 10178/18 (anhängig)

    TURAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR - 2577/19 (anhängig)

    BAYGELDI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR - 31880/08 (anhängig)

    VECHERSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 7148/06

    SHVEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 16088/06

    ZELIK AND KEL v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 34725/08

    SAVIN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33530/06

    POHOSKA v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2945/07

    GALOTSKIN v. GREECE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht