Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZUYEV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Procedure prescribed by ...
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
(Verfahrensmitteilung)
Zuyev v. Russia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Zitiert selbst (31)
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
To sum up, the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers, cited above, §§ 69 et seq.).The Court has repeated this finding in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 147-151, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006).
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
In those four cases the Court found the conditions of detention in that facility to have been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 61-67, 1 June 2006 (detention from 23 July 2004 to 19 May 2005); Sukhovoy v. Russia, no. 63955/00, §§ 20-34, 27 March 2008 (detention from 8 January to 2 August 2000); Nazarov v. Russia, no. 13591/05, §§ 80-83, 26 November 2009 (detention from April 2004 to summer 2006); and Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, §§ 126-30, 24 June 2010 (detention from March 2004 to August 2007).The Court thus concludes that the periods in question cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially given that their duration was entirely attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not deemed "speedy").
- EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
Moreover, in the case of Nazarov v. Russia (no. 13591/05, § 77, 26 November 2009) the Court dealt with the Government's argument on the basis of the reference to the awards that had been made by the Russian courts in favour of a Mr D. and a Mr R. The Court noted that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention had apparently been of a structural nature, for which no effective domestic remedy had been shown to exist, and that the cases to which the Government had referred did not concern detention in overcrowded cells but rather a detainee's infection with scabies and the authorities" failure to provide a detainee with food (see, for similar reasoning, Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 21, 1 July 2010; Arefyev v. Russia, no. 29464/03, § 54, 4 November 2010; and Geld v. Russia, no. 1900/04, § 21, 27 March 2012).In those four cases the Court found the conditions of detention in that facility to have been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 61-67, 1 June 2006 (detention from 23 July 2004 to 19 May 2005); Sukhovoy v. Russia, no. 63955/00, §§ 20-34, 27 March 2008 (detention from 8 January to 2 August 2000); Nazarov v. Russia, no. 13591/05, §§ 80-83, 26 November 2009 (detention from April 2004 to summer 2006); and Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, §§ 126-30, 24 June 2010 (detention from March 2004 to August 2007).
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
The relevant provisions of domestic and international law on conditions of detention are set out, for instance, in the Court's judgment in the case of Gladkiy v. Russia (no. 3242/03, §§ 36, 38 and 50, 21 December 2010).As to the Government's objection concerning the applicant's alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court has already rejected identical objections by the Russian Government in a number of cases regarding conditions of detention, having found that neither a complaint to the administration of a detention facility (see Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007, with further references) nor a tort action (see, for example, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 82-91, 12 March 2009; Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, § 112, 27 May 2010; Arefyev v. Russia, no. 29464/03, § 54, 4 November 2010; and Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 55, 21 December 2010) could be regarded as an effective remedy for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
- EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 29464/03
AREFYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
As to the Government's objection concerning the applicant's alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court has already rejected identical objections by the Russian Government in a number of cases regarding conditions of detention, having found that neither a complaint to the administration of a detention facility (see Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007, with further references) nor a tort action (see, for example, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 82-91, 12 March 2009; Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, § 112, 27 May 2010; Arefyev v. Russia, no. 29464/03, § 54, 4 November 2010; and Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 55, 21 December 2010) could be regarded as an effective remedy for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.Moreover, in the case of Nazarov v. Russia (no. 13591/05, § 77, 26 November 2009) the Court dealt with the Government's argument on the basis of the reference to the awards that had been made by the Russian courts in favour of a Mr D. and a Mr R. The Court noted that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention had apparently been of a structural nature, for which no effective domestic remedy had been shown to exist, and that the cases to which the Government had referred did not concern detention in overcrowded cells but rather a detainee's infection with scabies and the authorities" failure to provide a detainee with food (see, for similar reasoning, Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 21, 1 July 2010; Arefyev v. Russia, no. 29464/03, § 54, 4 November 2010; and Geld v. Russia, no. 1900/04, § 21, 27 March 2012).
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
To sum up, the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers, cited above, §§ 69 et seq.). - EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99
Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
The Court reiterates that paragraph 2 of Article 5 contains the elementary safeguard that any person arrested should know why he is being deprived of his liberty (see Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 50, ECHR 2002-I). - EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
To sum up, the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers, cited above, §§ 69 et seq.). - EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95
REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
The Court thus concludes that the periods in question cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially given that their duration was entirely attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not deemed "speedy"). - EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
During that period he was left in a state of uncertainty and confusion as to why he had been deprived of his liberty (see, for similar reasoning, Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 210, 21 April 2011). - EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01
NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01
KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 67413/01
GULTYAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 36743/97
GRAUSLYS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04
GRIDIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02
EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA
- EKMR, 31.05.1991 - 12690/87
CLINTON, SIMPSON, MAGUIRE, McGEOWN, MURRAY, CAMPBELL, SMYTH, BRESLIN, CONNOLLY, …
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
MELNIK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04
ISAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 63955/00
SUKHOVOY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 58444/15
GRUBNYK v. UKRAINE
The applicant relied on the case of Zuyev v. Russia (no. 16262/05, §§ 84 and 85, 19 February 2013), where the Court found a fourteen-hour delay too long to satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 2. - EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 51249/11
ORAVEC v. CROATIA
The Court therefore accepts that the County Court implicitly set the time-limit for the applicant's detention at a further two months (compare Zuyev v. Russia, no. 16262/05, § 74, 19 February 2013). - EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09
ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES
16262/05. - EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06
KLEYN v. RUSSIA
Furthermore, it has never been alleged by the applicant that the District Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or that there were any other flaws in the relevant detention (compare Zuyev v. Russia, no. 16262/05, § 74, 19 February 2013, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 135 in fine, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)). - EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 60085/10
BOBROVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence (see Zuyev v. Russia, no. 16262/05, §§ 95-96, 19 February 2013, and Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 153, 23 October 2012), this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
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".