Rechtsprechung
| EGMR - 2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 40436/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, 34068/19, 38336/19 |
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Zitiert selbst (18)
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 71295/17
CHUDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17
(a) Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their transportation (applications nos. 6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), forced shaving (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?.
2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.
71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, and 38336/19, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint about conditions of detention under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 93-119, and Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 36-45)?.
71295/17.
78210/17.
21401/18.
- EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 21205/12
BOBRYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17
(a) Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their transportation (applications nos. 6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), forced shaving (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?.
2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.
71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, and 38336/19, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint about conditions of detention under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 93-119, and Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 36-45)?.
2634/17 and 15294/18, were the applicants subjected to constant video surveillance during their detention in prisons? If so, did that measure constitute an interference with their private life? If so, was it justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019)? In particular:.
79064/17.
15294/18.
- EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
RESIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17
(a) Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their transportation (applications nos. 6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), forced shaving (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?.
2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.
71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, and 38336/19, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint about conditions of detention under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 93-119, and Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 36-45)?.
15031/18.
- EGMR, 25.08.2022 - 34068/19
SKIBENKO v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17
(a) Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their transportation (applications nos. 6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), forced shaving (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.What were the legal grounds for attaching the applicants to a wire rope together with several other prisoners during their transfer (applications nos. 34068/19 and 38336/19)?.
78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?.
34068/19.
- EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 55659/14
RUDYKH v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17
2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.29086/18.
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17
The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11
HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17
The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts))? What were the reasons and legal grounds for applying the above measures to the applicants? The Government are invited to indicate periods when the applicants were subjected to the above measures and to provide supporting documents relating to application of these measures.
- EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 18255/10
TOMOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17
The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019)?.
- EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 27057/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17
The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.2634/17 and 15294/18, were the applicants subjected to constant video surveillance during their detention in prisons? If so, did that measure constitute an interference with their private life? If so, was it justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019)? In particular:.
- EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR - 2634/17
The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.2634/17 and 15943/19, were the applicants subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in a metal cage in the courtrooms (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev, nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos.
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 11.07.2014 - 13/12
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 10/10
BRUNNER v. TURKEY
- KAG Mainz, 30.10.2008 - M 26/08
Eingruppierung Kirchenmusiker
- EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 18/03
VANZHULA v. RUSSIA
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 04.04.2003 - 19/02
- RG, 30.05.1908 - I 30/08
Förmlichkeiten des Protestes, durch den die Präsentation eines eigenen …
- EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09
GORBULYA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 59655/14
VORONTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 21205/12
BOBRYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
2634/17, 79064/17 and 15294/18, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table).21205/12, 2634/17, 66813/17, 79064/17 and 15294/18, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
21205/12, 2634/17, 66813/17, 79064/17 and 15294/18 inadmissible;.
2634/17.
79064/17.
15294/18.
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 24308/17
LIU v. CYPRUS
By a letter dated 29 June 2017 the applicant's lawyer informed the Court that on 28 June 2017 the applicant, who had been granted legal aid by the Nicosia District Court, lodged a civil action seeking damages for a violation of her right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 30(2) of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention (no. 2634/17).The applicant's lawyer maintained this position in his letter of 29 June 2017 in explaining why civil action no. 2634/17 was not brought under Law no. 2(I)/2010 (see paragraph 7 above).
In so far as civil action no. 2634/17 is concerned (see paragraph 7 above), the Court notes that the proceedings are still pending.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12, 19897/15, 50779/16, 38642/17, 15031/18 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RESIN v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
RESIN v. RUSSIA
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Zitiert selbst (23)
- EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06
EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
It is not disputed that telephone communications are covered by the notions of "private life" and "correspondence" in Article 8 § 1 (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 173, ECHR 2015). - EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03
Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
As the Court is master of the characterisation to be given to the facts of the case, and having regard to the nature of the interference and the contents of the applicant's submissions (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17 September 2009), it considers that the matters relating to the telephone conversations between the applicant and his representatives raise issue under Articles 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 193, 22 May 2012). - BGH, 22.12.2011 - AK 22/11
Fortdauer der Untersuchungshaft über sechs Monate hinaus (dringender Tatverdacht; …
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
23/11/2011.
- EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
As the Court is master of the characterisation to be given to the facts of the case, and having regard to the nature of the interference and the contents of the applicant's submissions (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17 September 2009), it considers that the matters relating to the telephone conversations between the applicant and his representatives raise issue under Articles 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 193, 22 May 2012). - EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 42399/13
IGRANOV v. RUSSIA and 18 other applications
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case law (see, for instance, Yevdokimov and Others, cited above, § 58; Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 40, 20 March 2018; Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, § 50, 18 December 2018; Resin and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 30428/14 and 8 others, § 15, 30 November 2017; and Gromovoy and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 59591/12 and 2 others, § 20, 9 November 2017), as well to the previous awards the Court has made to Mr Resin in connection with the same period of detention, the Court considers it reasonable not to make any award in non-pecuniary damage (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 44363/14 etc., § 12, 4 June 2020). - VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 01.04.2005 - 16/04
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
16/04/2017. - EKMR, 15.05.1980 - 8317/78
McFEELEY et al. v. the UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
The interference in question perused a legitimate aim of insuring safety and was necessary to facilitate identification of life prisoners (see Nazarenko, cited above, § 139, and McFeeley and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, DR 20, p. 91). - EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 152/04
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
Such an interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is in line with the criteria provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 8 (see Szuluk v. the United Kingdom, no. 36936/05, § 43, ECHR 2009, and Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, § 138, 12 February 2013). - EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 44363/14
IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case law (see, for instance, Yevdokimov and Others, cited above, § 58; Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 40, 20 March 2018; Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, § 50, 18 December 2018; Resin and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 30428/14 and 8 others, § 15, 30 November 2017; and Gromovoy and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 59591/12 and 2 others, § 20, 9 November 2017), as well to the previous awards the Court has made to Mr Resin in connection with the same period of detention, the Court considers it reasonable not to make any award in non-pecuniary damage (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 44363/14 etc., § 12, 4 June 2020). - EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 30218/96
Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens / des Familienlebens (Rechte inhaftierter …
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12
The Court has already found that normal restrictions and limitations consequent on prison life and discipline during lawful detention are not matters which would constitute in principle a violation of Article 8 (see D.G. v. Ireland, no. 39474/98, § 105, 16 May 2002, and Nowicka v. Poland, no. 30218/96, § 71, 3 December 2002). - EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03
GRYAZNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 9348/14
RESIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 13579/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 30428/14
RESIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 28448/16
CHIGIRINOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.11.2017 - 59591/12
GROMOVOY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 18255/10
TOMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 27236/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 18369/07
JOSIPOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03
SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 76573/01
DENNIS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04
[ENG]
- EGMR - 2634/17 (anhängig)
MOROZOV v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications
(a) Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their transportation (applications nos. 6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), forced shaving (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?.
2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants' detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.
71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, and 38336/19, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint about conditions of detention under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 93-119, and Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 36-45)?.
15031/18.
- EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 41090/18
RESIN v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
As to the remainder of the issues examined in the present case and regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see paragraph 11 above), including the previous awards made by the Court to the applicant, Mr Resin (see, for instance, Resin v. Russia [Committee], no. 9798/12, § 49, 29 June 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. - EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 55659/14
RUDYKH v. RUSSIA
The Court observes at the outset that, unlike in previous cases where the systematic use of handcuffs on life convicts was not in dispute between the parties (see N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, § 53, 2 June 2020; Shlykov and Others, cited above, § 68; and Resin v. Russia [Committee], no. 9798/12, § 49, 29 June 2021), the Government in the present case submitted the certificates drawn up by the penitentiary service denying such practice in respect of the applicants and covering the entire periods complained of (see paragraph 24 above).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".