Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2008,68586
EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,68586)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.07.2008 - 42239/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,68586)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. Juli 2008 - 42239/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,68586)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,68586) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
    Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Reminder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (16)

  • EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 7334/13

    MURSIC v. CROATIA

    "84. The Court has found in many previous cases that where the applicants had less than three square metres of floor space at their disposal, the overcrowding was considered to have been so severe as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, § 43, 31 July 2008; and Dmitriy Rozhin v. Russia, no. 4265/06, §§ 49 and 50, 23 October 2012)" (Tereshchenko v. Russia, 5 June 2014, § 84, emphasis added).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

    Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

    The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia on account of cramped conditions when applicants were being transported to and from court (see, for example, Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 118-120; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53-60, 31 July 2008; Idalov, cited above, §§ 103-08; and M.S. v. Russia, cited above, §§ 74-77).
  • EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

    TERESHCHENKO v. RUSSIA

    The Court has found in many previous cases that where the applicants had less than three square metres of floor space at their disposal, the overcrowding was considered to have been so severe as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, § 43, 31 July 2008; and Dmitriy Rozhin v. Russia, no. 4265/06, §§ 49 and 50, 23 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09

    TSARENKO v. RUSSIA

    In the light of this finding, the Court does not need to determine whether the refusal of leave to appear in court also entailed a violation of Article 5 § 4 (compare Gubkin, cited above, § 158, and Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, § 87, 31 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

    VLADIMIR KRIVONOSOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has previously found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in many Russian cases on account of applicants' confinement in cramped conditions in detention units of courthouses and lack of proper nutrition on the days of the hearings (see, among many other authorities, Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53-60, 31 July 2008; Salmanov v. Russia, no. 3522/04, §§ 60-65, 31 July 2008; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 92-99, 12 June 2008; and, more recently, Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, §§ 106-10, 12 February 2009).
  • EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 29334/11

    LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

    The Court has previously found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in many cases on account of applicants" confinement in cramped conditions in detention units of court-houses and a lack of proper food on court days (see, e.g., Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 96, 12 June 2008; Salmanov v. Russia, no. 3522/04, § 64, 31 July 2008; and Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, § 58, 31 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 42716/02

    TOMA c. ROUMANIE

    Enfin, aucun manquement à l'exigence d'un «bref délai» ne saurait être retenu en ce qui concerne la procédure de recours, qui s'est achevée par une décision du 15 octobre 2002 (voir, mutatis mutandis, Lapusan c. Roumanie, no 29723/03, §§ 44-45, 3 juin 2008, et Starokadomski c. Russie, no 42239/02, § 80, 31 juillet 2008).
  • EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 12622/04

    IVAKHNENKO v. RUSSIA

    The Court has found in many previous cases that where the applicants had at their disposal less than three square metres of floor surface, the overcrowding was considered to have been so severe as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, § 43, 31 July 2008; Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, § 70, 2 December 2010; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 10638/08

    ALEKHIN v. RUSSIA

    A violation of that Article was also found in cases where an applicant was transported many times to the courthouse and back in extremely cramped conditions (see Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 131 to 136, 9 October 2008, where the applicant was transported on more than one hundred and fifty days; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53 to 60, 31 July 2008, where the applicant was transported on one hundred and ninety-five days; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 92 to 99, 12 June 2008, where the applicant was transported on more than one hundred days; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118 to 120, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), where the applicant was transported on about two hundred days).
  • EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 5855/09

    PUZRINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118-120, ECHR 2005 X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53-60, 31 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 58939/00

    KOUZMIN c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 50932/16

    STUCHILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 17494/16

    PUKHACHEV AND ZARETSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 25251/04

    RETUNSCAIA v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 56110/09

    KLEMENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 55477/10

    KAVALEROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht