Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1-f Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 3 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (31)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it, must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-...).

  It also noted that the unsatisfactory conditions of his detention had exacerbated the mental anguish caused by the unlawful nature of his detention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 67, 25 October 2005).

• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  The Court reiterates that Article 14 has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the other provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, § 36).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the absence of any such intention cannot exclude a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 45, 2 June 2005, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the absence of any such intention cannot exclude a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 45, 2 June 2005, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  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, 24.01.2008 - 29787/03

  RIAD ET IDIAB c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  Furthermore, the Court considers it unacceptable for a person to be detained in conditions in which no provision has been made for meeting his or her basic needs (see Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 106, 24 January 2008).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it, must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  As the Court has already found in a similar Russian case, although the detainee had the right to take part in these proceedings, make submissions to the court or plead for his or her release, there was nothing in the wording of Article 108 to indicate that these proceedings could be taken on the initiative of the detainee, the prosecutor's application for the custodial measure being the required element for institution of such proceedings (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 88, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  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
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00

  MALECHKOV v. BULGARIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BVerfG, 24.07.2018 - 2 BvR 309/15

  Fixierung in psychiatrischer Unterbringung: Richtervorbehalt erforderlich?

  So sieht etwa Art. 5 Abs. 4 EMRK die Gewährleistung einer richterlichen Entscheidung über die Rechtmäßigkeit einer Freiheitsentziehung lediglich auf Antrag vor (vgl. EGMR, Shchebet v. Russia, Urteil vom 12. Juni 2008, Nr. 16074/07, § 77;… Valerius, in: Graf, Beck'scher Online Kommentar StPO, 29. Edition, Art. 5 EMRK Rn. 15 ).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Thus, temporary detention wings located inside police stations are designed for short-term custody only and often lack the amenities indispensable for prolonged detention, such as a toilet, sink, or exercise yard (see for example Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, § 89, 12 June 2008), whereas in correctional colonies - in contrast to remand prisons - the restricted space in the dormitories is compensated for by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the day-time (see Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
• 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, 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, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Thus, temporary detention wings located inside police stations are designed for short-term custody only and often lack the amenities indispensable for prolonged detention, such as a toilet, sink, or exercise yard (see for example Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, § 89, 12 June 2008), whereas in correctional colonies - in contrast to remand prisons - the restricted space in the dormitories is compensated for by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the day-time (see Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
• OLG Hamm, 11.04.2019 - 1 Vollz (Ws) 197/19

  Zuständigkeit der Strafvollstreckungskammer für 5- oder 7-Punkt-Fixierungen im …

  So sieht etwa Art. 5 Abs. 4 EMRK die Gewährleistung einer richterlichen Entscheidung über die Rechtmäßigkeit einer Freiheitsentziehung lediglich auf Antrag vor (vgl. EGMR, Shchebet v. Russia, Urteil vom 12. Juni 2008, Nr. 16074/07, § 77;… Valerius, in: Graf, Beck'scher Online Kommentar StPO, 29. Edition, Art. 5 EMRK Rn. 15 ).".
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA 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, 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, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  A.L. (X.W.) 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 Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 66-70, 25 October 2005; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, §§ 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; and Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, §§ 128-34, 20 December 2011).
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 12106/09

  [ENG]

  Although there is no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that he was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell as so many other inmates for more than five months was itself sufficient to cause feelings of inferiority and frustration, which must have been exacerbated by the fact that, as the Court will demonstrate below (see paragraph 160 below), his deprivation of liberty during that period lacked a lawful basis (compare Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, § 95, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 56751/16

  SHIKSAITOV v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 6887/02

  ELDAR IMANOV AND AZHDAR IMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 292/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 52805/10

  ABIDOV AGAINST RUSSIA AND 19 OTHER CASES
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 47593/10

  KHOMULLO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 30303/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 23880/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 44240/12

  YAKOVLEV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 74279/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  KHUDYAKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2020 - 42779/12

  NUR AHMED v. UKRAINE and 5 other applications
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 19664/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36020/06

  COSCODAR c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 31237/03

  KIRAKOSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06

  KHRISTOFOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

  MKHITARYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 41698/04

  TADEVOSYAN v. ARMENIA