Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GELD v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Geld v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04

  It therefore appears that the applicant had to spend a considerable part of each day in the facility in a cramped cell with no window in the proper sense of the word (compare Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 75, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04

  To sum up, the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; 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, cited above, §§ 69 et seq.).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04

  To sum up, the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; 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, cited above, §§ 69 et seq.).

 
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04

  To sum up, the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; 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, cited above, §§ 69 et seq.).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04

  To sum up, the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; 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, cited above, §§ 69 et seq.).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04

  To sum up, the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; 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, cited above, §§ 69 et seq.).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04

  Furthermore, the Court notes that the fact that the applicant had access to a shower and could wash his linen and clothes only once a week raises serious concerns as to the conditions of hygiene and sanitation, given the acutely overcrowded accommodation in which he found himself (see, for similar reasoning, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 107, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 38746/03

  PAVALACHE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04

  On a number of occasions the Court has already treated exposure of a non-smoking detainee to environmental tobacco smoke in overcrowded cells as an additional aggravating circumstance (see, for instance, Pavalache v. Romania, no. 38746/03, § 94, 18 October 2011).