Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROMAN KARASEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13+3 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  The Court reiterates that it is not normally within its province to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts because, as a general rule, it is for the domestic courts to assess the evidence before them (see, among others, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B, and Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, §§ 33 and 34, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  The Court reiterates that it is not normally within its province to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts because, as a general rule, it is for the domestic courts to assess the evidence before them (see, among others, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B, and Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, §§ 33 and 34, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (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; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

 
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 28945/95

  T.P. ET K.M. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  The Court further considers that, where an arguable breach of one or more of the rights under the Convention is in issue, there should be available to the victim a mechanism for establishing any liability of State officials or bodies for that breach (see T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 107, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (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; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  This rule is subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (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; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  Only where a party would not receive a fair hearing without the provision of legal aid, with reference to all the facts and circumstances of the case, will Article 6 require legal aid, including legal assistance (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 61, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (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; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (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; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

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

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 15413/03

  ZENIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 3267/03

  MOSKALYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  In the area of complaints about inhuman or degrading conditions of detention, the Court has already observed that two types of relief are possible: an improvement in the material conditions of detention and compensation for the damage or loss sustained on account of such conditions (see Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007; and Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, § 79, 25 November 2010).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 61467/12

  REZMIVES ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Même lorsque la possibilité d'obtenir une indemnité est prévue, une voie de recours peut ne pas offrir de chances raisonnables de succès, notamment lorsque l'octroi d'une indemnisation est conditionné à l'établissement d'une faute de la part des autorités (Ananyev et autres, précité, § 113 ; Roman Karasev c. Russie, no 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 novembre 2010 ; et Shilbergs c. Russie, no 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 décembre 2009).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA

  The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

  RESHETNYAK v. RUSSIA

  The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 41828/10

  GURENKO v. RUSSIA

  The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 3509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 40044/12

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found a violation of the right to a fair hearing in many cases against Russia, in which Russian courts refused leave to appear in court to imprisoned applicants who had wished to make oral submissions on their civil claims (see Bortkevich and Rozhin, both cited above, and also Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 65-70, 25 November 2010; Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 204-208, 27 May 2010, and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 107-113, 17 December 2009).