Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  Further, the Court cannot speculate as to what the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicants might have been if the violation of the Convention had not occurred (see, among other authorities, Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 260, 13 July 2006; Schmautzer v. Austria, judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-A, § 44; and Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, § 85).

  Inasmuch as the applicants" claim relates to the finding of violations of Article 6 § 3 (d) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, the Court 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; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 263, 13 July 2006).

• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  Article 6 § 3 (d) does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf: its essential aim, as indicated by the words "under the same conditions", is a full "equality of arms" in the matter (see Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, § 89 and Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, § 33).

  The task of the Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings at issue, considered as a whole, were fair as required by paragraph 1 (see, among other authorities, Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191, p. 15, § 35, and Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, § 33).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).

  The State must ensure that given the practical demands of imprisonment, the health and well-being of a detainee are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79).

 
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  Article 6 § 3 (d) does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf: its essential aim, as indicated by the words "under the same conditions", is a full "equality of arms" in the matter (see Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, § 89 and Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, § 33).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  Referring to the aforesaid general principles related to the prohibition of ill-treatment (see paragraph 149 above), the Court further reiterates that, although Article 3 cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds safe for exceptional cases (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI, and Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001), the lack of appropriate medical treatment in prison may in itself raise an issue under Article 3, even if the applicant's state of health does not require his immediate release.
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 101-02, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  The Court reiterates that it has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees while in the pre-trial detention (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07

  Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"

  The Court reiterates that, where the trial court grants a request to hear defence witnesses, it is under an obligation to take effective measures to ensure their presence at the hearing by way of, at the very least, issuing summonses (see Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia, no. 30997/02, § 207, 25 September 2008).
• 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, 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, 14.03.2013 - 16133/08

  INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In similar situations the Court has considered, for example, written statements by fellow inmates provided by applicants in support of their allegations (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 14 and 42, 26 June 2008; and Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia, no. 30997/02, § 152, 25 September 2008).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 32362/02

  VISLOGUZOV v. UKRAINE

  In similar situations the Court has considered, for example, written statements by fellow inmates provided by applicants in support of their allegations (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 14 and 42, 26 June 2008; and Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia, no. 30997/02, § 152, 25 September 2008).
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  PITALEV v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, the absence of an individual sleeping place combined with a deficiency of private space (2.04 sq. m of personal space in the dormitory) was found by the Court to have amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment (see Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia, no. 30997/02, §§ 149-159, 25 September 2008).
• EGMR - 12913/07

  CHEMOLTYNOV v. RUSSIA

  In particular, was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) on account of the applicant's inability to question in open court the victims in his case as witnesses for prosecution (see Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia, no. 30997/02, § 194, 25 September 2008), namely Mr Evstafyev and Mr Letyaga? Was there a good reason for the failure to allow the applicant an opportunity to examine the witnesses in question (see Mesesnel v. Slovenia, no. 22163/08, § 40, 28 February 2013, and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 120, ECHR 2011)? Was the applicant's conviction based solely or decisively on the evidence of the absent witnesses (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, § 147)?.