Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHRISTOFOROV v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06

  In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06

  Even if there had been no fault on the part of the administration of the temporary detention facility, it should be emphasised that the Governments are answerable under the Convention for the acts of any State agency, since what is in issue in all cases before the Court is the international responsibility of the State (see, among other authorities, Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 45, 2 June 2005).

• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06

  The Court has examined and dismissed them, finding the remedies ineffective (see, for example, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 84-91, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 32927/03

  KAJA c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06

  The Court reiterates that it has on many occasions considered that the mere fact of holding an applicant in custody in a cell designed only for short-term detention disclosed a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Kaja v. Greece, no. 32927/03, §§ 49-50, 27 July 2006, where the applicant was held for three months in detention without an opportunity to enjoy outdoor exercise, radio, television or free meals, and Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 84-96, 12 June 2008, where, for a month, the applicant was confined to a cell without a proper door (the cell had a sparse metal grille instead), window, toilet or sink and in the absence of any opportunity for outdoor exercise).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06

  The Court reiterates that it has on many occasions considered that the mere fact of holding an applicant in custody in a cell designed only for short-term detention disclosed a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Kaja v. Greece, no. 32927/03, §§ 49-50, 27 July 2006, where the applicant was held for three months in detention without an opportunity to enjoy outdoor exercise, radio, television or free meals, and Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 84-96, 12 June 2008, where, for a month, the applicant was confined to a cell without a proper door (the cell had a sparse metal grille instead), window, toilet or sink and in the absence of any opportunity for outdoor exercise).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined the conditions of detention obtaining in police stations in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 23 et seq., 29 April 2010; Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 32, 1 July 2010; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; Fedotov, cited above, § 67; Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, §§ 128-34, 20 December 2011; and Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 89-93, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined and dismissed them, finding the remedies ineffective (see, for example, Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, § 18, 29 April 2010, and Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 84-91, 12 March 2009).

  The Court reiterates, firstly, that it has on many occasions considered that the mere fact of holding an applicant in custody in a cell designed only for short-term detention disclosed a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 23-27, 29 April 2010; Kaja v. Greece, no. 32927/03, §§ 49-50, 27 July 2006; and Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 84-96, 12 June 2008).

• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined the conditions of detention obtaining in police stations in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 32, 1 July 2010; Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 23 et seq., 29 April 2010; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 67, 25 October 2005; Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, §§ 128-34, 20 December 2011; and Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 89-93, 3 May 2012).

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  KIM v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates in this connection its well-established case-law that the mere fact of holding an applicant for a long period of time in an unadapted cell designed only for short-term detention discloses a violation of Article 3 (see Aslanis v. Greece, no. 36401/10, § 38, 17 October 2013, with further references; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, §§ 69-72, 3 March 2011; Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 23-27, 29 April 2010, and Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 84-96, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 6887/02

  ELDAR IMANOV AND AZHDAR IMANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates, firstly, that it has on many occasions considered that the mere fact of holding an applicant in custody in a cell designed only for short-term detention disclosed a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 23-27, 29 April 2010; Kaja v. Greece, no. 32927/03, §§ 49-50, 27 July 2006; and Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 84-96, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 41038/07

  [ENG]

  The Court notes that it has already examined the conditions of detention in temporary detention centres in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 22-29, 29 April 2010; Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, §§ 27-33, 1 July 2010; Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 89-93, 3 May 2012; and Velichko v. Russia, no. 19664/07, §§ 54-60, 15 January 2013).
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 23880/05

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined the conditions of detention obtaining in police stations in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 32, 1 July 2010; Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 23 et seq., 29 April 2010; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; and Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 67, 25 October 2005).
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 44240/12

  YAKOVLEV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined the conditions of detention obtaining in police stations in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see, among numerous other authorities, Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 117-21, 31 July 2014; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, §§ 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 32, 1 July 2010; Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 23 et seq., 29 April 2010; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 67, 25 October 2005; Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, §§ 128-34, 20 December 2011; and Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 89-93, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  [ENG]

  Elle rappelle avoir estimé à plusieurs reprises que la détention dans des lieux destinés, de par leur nature même, à accueillir des personnes pour de très courtes durées peut emporter une violation de l'article 3 (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Shchebet c. Russie, no 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 juin 2008, Khristoforov c. Russie, no 11336/06, § 23, 29 avril 2010, Nedayborshch c. Russie, no 42255/04, § 32, 1er juillet 2010, Kuptsov et Kuptsova c. Russie, no 6110/03, § 69, 3 mars 2011, Ergashev c. Russie, no 12106/09, §§ 128-134, 20 décembre 2011, et Salikhov c. Russie, no 23880/05, §§ 89-93, 3 mai 2012).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 46282/07

  [ENG]

  The Court further observes that that in a number of earlier cases against Russia (see, for example, Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 18-19, 29 April 2010) it dismissed the Government's objection as to the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant for their failure to demonstrate the practical effectiveness of the applicant's recourse to the domestic authorities in respect of his complaints about the conditions of his detention in a temporary detention centre.
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 19664/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 10760/06

  ZAKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 46320/07

  KOKORIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  [ENG]