Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NIKOLAY FEDOROV v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (21)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  However, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  However, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  ISAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  Having regard to these considerations and having examined the available material before it, the Court considers that it has not been convincingly shown that the force used against the applicant was strictly necessary in the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Alibekov v. Russia, no. 8413/02, § 57 et seq., 14 May 2009; Toporkov v. Russia, no. 66688/01, § 45 et seq., 1 October 2009; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, §§ 100-102, 22 October 2009).

• EGMR, 14.05.2009 - 8413/02

  ALIBEKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  Having regard to these considerations and having examined the available material before it, the Court considers that it has not been convincingly shown that the force used against the applicant was strictly necessary in the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Alibekov v. Russia, no. 8413/02, § 57 et seq., 14 May 2009; Toporkov v. Russia, no. 66688/01, § 45 et seq., 1 October 2009; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, §§ 100-102, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  The responsibility of a State under the Convention, arising from the acts of its organs, agents and servants, is not to be confused with the domestic legal issues of individual criminal responsibility under examination in national proceedings (see Golubeva v. Russia, no. 1062/03, § 98, 17 December 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  The Court reiterates in that connection that where domestic proceedings have taken place, as in the present case, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  It normally requires also that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among other authorities, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  It is questionable whether hitting the applicant with a truncheon was conducive to the desired result and whether the possibility of using other less intrusive means was considered (see Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, §§ 56-61, 15 October 2009, and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 64-70, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  In the present case, the burden rests on the Government to demonstrate with convincing arguments that the use of force was not excessive (see, mutatis mutandis, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 104, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  MATKO v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 17060/03

  ZELILOF v. GREECE
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 35962/97

  GÖMI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 77018/01

  POLYAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33470/03

  ANTIPENKOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 42705/11

  ESTEMIROVA v. RUSSIA

  Their conclusions are always formulated as "could" or "could not" (see, for example, Nikolay Fedorov v. Russia, no. 10393/04, § 25, 5 April 2011; Nigmatullin and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 47821/09 and others, § 58, 4 February 2020; and Romanova and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
• EGMR - 586/08 (anhängig)

  YANCHURKIN v. RUSSIA

  - Was any such refusal issued in the framework of the file relating to the criminal charges against the applicant or in separate proceedings? Did the applicant institute review proceedings under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) in respect of any such refusal to prosecute (see Trubnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 49790/99, 14 October 2003)? Had the applicant received access to texts of the refusal to prosecute well before his trial started? If not, given the intertwined nature of the charge against him and the subject-matter of the refusal to prosecute, was the remedy under Article 125 of the CCrP no longer available to him because his own criminal case was already pending before a trial court (see "Relevant domestic law and practice") (see also Nikolay Fedorov v. Russia, no. 10393/04, § 46, 5 April 2011)? Did the procedure under Article 125 of the CCrP lose any prospect of success, following the applicant's conviction in respect of the related facts?.