Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 9297/02   

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/2008,67193
EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 9297/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,67193)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.07.2008 - 9297/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,67193)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. Juli 2008 - 9297/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,67193)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,67193) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (21)  

  • EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 43233/02

    MAKSIMOV v. RUSSIA

    In the present case, however, the Court finds it possible to award the applicant 9, 000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (compare Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 87-88, 20 January 2005; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 48-50, 7 June 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008; Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 55, 31 July 2008; Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008; and, most recently, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008), plus any tax that may be chargeable.

    However, we cannot overlook the fact that the amount of RUB 10, 000 awarded in the circumstances of the case appears to be disproportionately low, particularly if compared to what the Court generally awards in similar Russian cases (see, for example, Barabanshchikov v. Russia, no. 36220/02, § 70, 8 January 2009, and Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008).[1].

  • EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 48609/06

    NENCHEVA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

    Elle a souligné qu'il ne s'agit pas d'une obligation de résultat, mais de moyens, en ce sens que c'est le processus en lui-même et non pas l'issue de la procédure en question qui est pertinent pour apprécier l'effectivité de l'enquête des autorités (voir, mutatis mutandis, Nadrossov c. Russie, no 9297/02, § 38, 31 juillet 2008).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 22362/06

    CUCU v. ROMANIA

    Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Mikheyev, cited above, § 108, and Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 38, 31 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

    NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court previously found it necessary, in rare cases, to make a monetary award in respect of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made or where the claim was belated, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the cases, for instance the absolute or fundamental character of the right or freedom violated (see, in relation to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008; in relation to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation or appalling conditions of detention, Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in relation to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).
  • EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04

    VLADIMIR FEDOROV v. RUSSIA

    Since this right is of an absolute nature, the Court finds it possible to award the applicant 10, 000 euros (EUR) by way of non-pecuniary damage (compare Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 87-88, 20 January 2005, Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 48-50, 7 June 2007, Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008, Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 55, 31 July 2008, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008 and, most recently, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008), plus any tax that may be chargeable.
  • EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 20602/05

    GERASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

    Under the circumstances he might well have been discouraged from voicing his allegations by the very fact of being under the control of those whom he accused of ill-treatment (see Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 33, 31 July 2008, and Dvalishvili v. Georgia, no. 19634/07, § 44, 18 December 2012).
  • EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 2807/04

    GLADYSHEV v. RUSSIA

    The Court therefore finds that the investigating authorities' failure to look for corroborating evidence and their deferential attitude to the police officers must be considered to be a particularly serious shortcoming in the investigation (see Aydın v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, § 106, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI, and Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 44, 31 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 25209/06

    GORBATENKO v. UKRAINE

    The Court accepts that an applicant might be discouraged from voicing his allegations by the very fact of being under the control of those whom he was accusing of ill-treatment (see Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 33, 31 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

    CHUDUN v. RUSSIA

    Since this right is of absolute character, the Court finds it possible to award the applicant 17, 000 euros (EUR) by way of non-pecuniary damage (compare Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, §§ 53-54, 31 July 2008; Mayzit, cited above, §§ 87-88; and Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 48-50, 7 June 2007), plus any tax that may be chargeable.
  • EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

    MINDADZE AND NEMSITSVERIDZE v. GEORGIA

    Consequently, it is plausible that prior to that date he was discouraged from making any complaints as he had been left alone in the hands of police officers whom he directly accused of torture and of prison staff who, in his opinion, might have had close official links with the presumed perpetrators, all the time without any meaningful assistance from the outside world (compare, for instance, with Dvalishvili v. Georgia, no. 19634/07, §§ 44 and 47, 18 December 2012; Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 153, 21 April 2011, and Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 33, 31 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 3937/03

    KONDRATISHKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

    GRIGORYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05

    ALCHAGIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1066/05

    DOROGAYKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 22485/05

    FILATOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 56838/08

    ALECU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 43442/11

    SVOBODA ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  • EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 10425/09

    ACATRINEI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 19634/07

    DVALISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 38047/04

    SHUVALOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 15816/04

    MURUKIN v. UKRAINE

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