Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVINSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Declares admissible without prejudging the merits of the case Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 11982/02

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  For the above reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 204-06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 55-58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  Despite the fact that the Government only raised this argument in respect of IVS-1 and IZ-63/2, the Court observes that it has previously held that it cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government has not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and, more recently, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-...) and therefore finds it necessary to examine the compliance with the six-month rule in connection with the complaints about all pre-trial detention centres referred to by the applicant as well as the conditions of his transportation.
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  For the above reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 204-06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 55-58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  For the above reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 204-06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 55-58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  Despite the fact that the Government only raised this argument in respect of IVS-1 and IZ-63/2, the Court observes that it has previously held that it cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government has not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and, more recently, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-...) and therefore finds it necessary to examine the compliance with the six-month rule in connection with the complaints about all pre-trial detention centres referred to by the applicant as well as the conditions of his transportation.
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  As regards the complaints about IVS-1 and IZ-63/2, the applicant's detention in these facilities ended on the respective dates of 23 March 2001 and 9 June 2001, whereas the application was not introduced to the Court until 21 February 2002, which is more than six months later (see, for example, Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

  In particular, all facilities, both IVS-1, IZ-63/2 and the subsequent ones, were situated in different buildings located in different places, the applicant's detention in these facilities ended on clearly identifiable dates and nothing in the parties" submissions suggests that the measurements of the applicant's cells, the cell layouts or any other relevant characteristics were identical or remarkably similar (see, by contrast, Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 30, 7 June 2007).
• EKMR, 06.07.1988 - 12015/86

  HILTON c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02

  KRANZ v. POLAND
• EKMR, 14.05.1987 - 11192/84

  MONTION contre la France
• EKMR, 13.10.1986 - 9303/81

  B. and D. c. ROYAUME-UNI

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

  In this connection the Court notes that on several previous occasions when the Government have failed to submit original records, the Court has held that documents prepared after a considerable period of time cannot be viewed as sufficiently reliable given the length of time that has elapsed (see, among recent authorities, Novinskiy v. Russia, no. 11982/02, § 105, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  [ENG]

  The Court cannot, however, view such documents as sufficiently reliable (see, among other authorities, Novinskiy v. Russia, no. 11982/02, § 105, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21503/04

  [ENG]

  In this connection, the Court notes that on several previous occasions when the Government have failed to submit original records, it has held that documents prepared after a considerable period of time cannot be viewed as sufficiently reliable given the time that has passed (see, among recent authorities, Novinskiy v. Russia, no. 11982/02, § 105, 10 February 2009).