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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• 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, 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, 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, 01.04.2010 - 67413/01

  GULTYAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05

  In the Court's opinion the detention of the applicant, a non-smoker, for almost two years with smokers could have caused him considerable distress in the absence of adequate ventilation (see Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, § 160, 1 April 2010).
• 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, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05

  It therefore appears that the applicant had to spend a considerable part of each day in a cramped cell with no window in the proper sense of the word (compare Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 75, ECHR 2001-III).
• 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, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV 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, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05

  Furthermore, the Court notes that the fact that the applicant had access to a shower for no more than fifteen minutes once a week raises serious concerns as to the conditions of hygiene and sanitation in the facility, given the acutely overcrowded accommodation in which he found himself (see, for similar reasoning, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 107, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

• 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)).