Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16, 43059/16, 57738/16, 59152/16, 60178/16, 63211/16, 75362/16 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NIKITIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
NIKITIN v. ESTONIA and 5 other applications
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16, 43059/16, 57738/16, 59152/16, 60178/16, 63211/16, 75362/16
- EGMR, 05.02.2020 - 23226/16
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (29)
- EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 21071/05
WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
Again, the mere fact that the compensation awarded to an applicant at the domestic level does not correspond to the amounts awarded by the Court in comparable cases does not render the remedy ineffective (see, among other authorities, Risková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, § 100, 22 August 2006; Jakupovic v. Croatia, no. 12419/04, § 28, 31 July 2007; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 48, 10 April 2008; Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, § 39, 17 July 2008).But the situation is different when the compensation awarded is "unreasonably" or "disproportionately" lower than the amounts awarded by the Court (see, among other authorities, Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 56, 10 April 2008; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 99 and 115, ECHR 2009; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 62798/09
ARTUR IVANOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the above-mentioned situation cannot be regarded as a breach of the applicant's right to an effective remedy (see Artur Ivanov v. Russia, no. 62798/09, § 40, 5 June 2018, and, mutatis mutantis, Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, §§ 50-51, 4 July 2006).I agree with the majority that "the fact that the applicants" claims were granted only partially is not in itself sufficient to render the remedy ineffective" (see paragraphs 216-17 of the judgment, referring to Artur Ivanov v. Russia, no. 62798/09, § 40, 5 June 2018 and, mutatis mutandis, Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, § 51, 4 July 2006).
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
It would nevertheless point out and invite the respondent Government to take cognisance of the principles deriving from the Court's case-law, according to which the existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3 (see, among other authorities, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 98, 10 January 2012).42525/07 and 60800/08, § 117, 10 January 2012; Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98
Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
The domestic courts should, in each case, attempt to assess the cumulative effect which the conditions of detention have on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the prisoner by reason of his detention in those conditions (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004). - EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02
NARDONE c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
The domestic courts should, in each case, attempt to assess the cumulative effect which the conditions of detention have on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the prisoner by reason of his detention in those conditions (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004). - EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00
Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 91, 22 May 2012). - EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02
Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see, among other authorities, Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III; Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 140; Idalov, cited above, § 92; and Varga and Others v. Hungary, nos. 14097/12 and 5 others, § 70, 10 March 2015). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 113, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). - EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
Even the absence of an intention to humiliate or debase a detainee by placing him or her in poor conditions, while being a factor to be taken into account, does not conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III; Mandic and Jovic, cited above, § 80; Iacov Stanciu, cited above, § 179; and, generally under Article 3, Bouyid, cited above, § 86). - EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98
VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him or her 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 or her health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla, cited above, §§ 92-94; Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII; Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 141; Idalov, cited above, § 93; and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 178, ECHR 2016). - EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 58174/00
RISKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 22014/04
KAIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 28674/03
SLAVCHO KOSTOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03
IDALOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
SABEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05
LISEYTSEVA AND MASLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12
VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 72287/10
RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 73798/13
VALADA MATOS DAS NEVES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
Transnistrien
- EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
- EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12
Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …
- EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 11.01.2001 - 38460/97
PLATAKOU v. GREECE
- EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 31623/17
BARDALI c. SUISSE
Il s'ensuit que ces griefs doivent être rejetés pour non-épuisement des voies de recours internes, en application de l'article 35 §§ 1 et 4 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Nikitin et autres c. Estonie, nos 23226/16 et 6 autres, §§ 132-134, 29 janvier 2019).