Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHKURENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 17, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2009 - 15010/04

  Furthermore, it reiterates that the personal space in the dormitory must be viewed in the context of the wide freedom of movement enjoyed by detainees in correctional colonies during the daytime, which ensures that they have unobstructed access to natural light and air (see Solovyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 76114/01, 27 September 2007; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103 and 107, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2009 - 15010/04

  Furthermore, it reiterates that the personal space in the dormitory must be viewed in the context of the wide freedom of movement enjoyed by detainees in correctional colonies during the daytime, which ensures that they have unobstructed access to natural light and air (see Solovyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 76114/01, 27 September 2007; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103 and 107, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 76114/01

  SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.09.2009 - 15010/04

  Furthermore, it reiterates that the personal space in the dormitory must be viewed in the context of the wide freedom of movement enjoyed by detainees in correctional colonies during the daytime, which ensures that they have unobstructed access to natural light and air (see Solovyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 76114/01, 27 September 2007; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103 and 107, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 138, 17 January 2012; and Dmitriy Rozhin v. Russia, no. 4265/06, § 53, 23 October 2012), freedom of movement afforded to inmates and unobstructed access to natural light and air (see, for example, Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009), and relative lengthy daily periods for outdoor exercises and freedom of movement within the prison building (see Sulejmanovic v. Italy, no. 22635/03, §§ 48-52, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 16133/08

  INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court notes that, as opposed to pre-trial detention facilities and high-security prisons where inmates are confined to their cell for most of the day, when assessing the issue of overcrowding in post-trial detention facilities such as correctional colonies, it considered that the personal space in the dormitory should be viewed in the context of the applicable regime, providing for a wider freedom of movement enjoyed by detainees in correctional colonies during the daytime, which ensures that they have unobstructed access to natural light and air (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 107, ECHR 2001-VIII; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004; Solovyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 76114/01, 27 September 2007; and Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  MINDADZE AND NEMSITSVERIDZE v. GEORGIA

  42525/07 and 60800/08, § 122, 10 January 2012; Janiashvili, cited above, § 71; Ildani v. Georgia, no. 65391/09, §§ 26 and 27, 23 April 2013; Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, § 45, 20 May 2010; Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.) no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009, and also Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 65, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 14344/13

  ALIMOV v. TURKEY

  The Court further notes that while scarce space in relative terms may in some circumstances be compensated for by the possibility to move about freely within the confines of a detention facility (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 103 and 107, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004) and by unobstructed access to natural light and air (see, for example, Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009), the applicant claimed - and the Government did not deny - that the facility in question was made up of one room only, with no access to natural light whatsoever, and the applicant was not authorised to leave that room and circulate freely within the airport.