Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,63300
EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02 (https://dejure.org/2010,63300)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.05.2010 - 14146/02 (https://dejure.org/2010,63300)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Mai 2010 - 14146/02 (https://dejure.org/2010,63300)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63300) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ARTYOMOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (69)Zitiert selbst (35)

  • EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02
    The Court reiterates that the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present his case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
  • EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02
    Article 6 § 1 leaves to the State a free choice of the means to be used in guaranteeing litigants these rights (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2005-II).
  • EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

    SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02
    Having regard to the foregoing and taking into account the Court's finding that it is understandable that in the sphere involving participation of convicted persons in civil cases the national authorities should have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy (see paragraph 202 above), the Court finds that there were circumstances which justified dispensing with the applicant's right to attend the hearing before the Kaliningrad Regional Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263, and Zagorodnikov v. Russia, no. 66941/01, §§ 33, 34, 7 June 2007).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    In addition, it had become an established judicial practice to deny the detained claimant the possibility of attending the hearing to state his position to the court in person (here they referred to the cases of Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, 27 May 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, 17 December 2009; and Skorobogatykh v. Russia, no. 4871/03, 22 December 2009).

    Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, 27 May 2010 (IZ-39/1, Kaliningrad, 1999-2000 and 2003-2004).

  • EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

    GLADKIY v. RUSSIA

    However, relying on submissions by his former fellow inmates whose complaints about the conditions of detention in facility no. IZ-39/1 had already been examined by the Court (see, among other authorities, Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 123-133, 27 May 2010, and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 89-99, 17 December 2009), he alleged that the cell which measured 21 square metres had had eight sleeping places and had usually housed 24 inmates.

    They noted that the Court's findings in respect of other individuals who had been detained in facility no. IZ-39/1 and had complained to the Court under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of their detention in that facility (for instance, Mr Artyomov, application no. 14146/02, or Mr Shilbergs, application no. 20075/03) were inapplicable to the circumstances of the applicant's case because neither Mr Artyomov nor Mr Shilbergs had been detained in the same cells as the applicant.

    Citing the report of the Ombudsman of the Kaliningrad Region (see paragraph 37 above), the domestic courts' judgments (see paragraphs 20 and 27 above) and the Court's findings in the cases of Artyomov v. Russia (see no. 14146/02, judgment of 27 May 2010), Shilbergs v. Russia (no. 20075/03, judgment of 17 December 2009), and Skorobogatykh v. Russia (no. 4871/03, judgment of 22 December 2009), the applicant insisted that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading.

    In the case of Artyomov v. Russia (no. 14146/02, §§ 111-112, 27 May 2010) the Court, in particular, held:.

    More specifically, the Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 3 on account of the detention of applicants in overcrowded conditions in detention facility no. IZ-39/1 at the time when the applicant in the present case was detained there (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 123-133, 27 May 2010; Kositsyn v. Russia, no. 69535/01, §§ 21-31, 12 May 2010; and Shilbergs v. Russia, §§ 89-99, no. 20075/03, 17 December 2009).

  • EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 78638/11

    SHLYKOV v. RUSSIA

    It would have been preferable if he had acted with greater expedition in bringing his case before the Court for examination (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, § 115, 27 May 2010), yet as long as his detention constituted a "continuing situation" and the Court is not prevented from establishing the facts on account of the amount of time that has already lapsed, his complaint cannot be rejected as belated.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht