Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1-c No violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 1704/06
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (30)

• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  When assessing conditions of detention, one must consider their cumulative effects as well as the applicant's specific allegations (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).

  Further corroboration of the first applicant's description of his punishment cell is to be found in the Reports on the visits to Tbilisi No. 5 Prison made by the CPT and Human Rights Watch at the material time (see paragraphs 70 and 71 above; Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II; Kehayov v. Bulgaria, no. 41035/98, § 66, 18 January 2005; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 80, 13 September 2005).

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  The Court also accepts the applicants" assertion that the special forces in the courthouse aroused in them feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX; Tyrer, cited above, § 32).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  Detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period of time without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, amongst others, Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 32-36, 8 July 2008; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-41, 10 October 2000; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 146-147).

 
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  Detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period of time without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, amongst others, Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 32-36, 8 July 2008; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-41, 10 October 2000; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 146-147).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 36743/97

  GRAUSLYS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  Detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period of time without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, amongst others, Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 32-36, 8 July 2008; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-41, 10 October 2000; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 146-147).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  The Court recalls that, although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required by Article 6 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see, for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 162, Reports 1998-VIII; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI; Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  There has thus been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, for example, Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 43-45, 9 January 2003, where the Court found a period of seventeen days for examining an appeal against detention to be too long, and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where two such periods of twenty-three days were considered excessive).
• EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 27154/95

  D.N. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  The Court recalls that, even without an explicit stipulation of these requirements in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, it would be inconceivable to suppose that this provision, which enshrines the right "to take proceedings [in] a court", did not envisage, as a fundamental requisite, the independence and impartiality of that court (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 24, Series A no. 8; D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27154/95, § 42, ECHR 2001-III; Bülbül v. Turkey, no. 47297/99, §§ 26-28, 22 May 2007).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  The determination of this matter lies within the Court's discretion, and should be equitable (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 120, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  Thus, the absence of the video recording of 27 August 2005 from the criminal case file at the beginning of the criminal proceedings, which fact might well have been conditioned by the considerations of the efficiency of investigation and/or speediness of the habeas corpus procedure (see, Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 77, ECHR 2003-I (extracts); cf.
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  KADEM v. MALTA
• EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 47297/99

  BÜLBÜL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 18145/05

  GIGOLASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  HENAF c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 53254/99

  KARALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  ISTRATII v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 52058/99

  GORODNITCHEV c. RUSSIE

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 32541/08

  Keine Käfige für Angeklagte

  Sur la base de ces éléments, le Gouvernement considère que la présente espèce n'est pas comparable aux affaires où le recours à une cage de métal dans un prétoire a conduit la Cour à conclure à la violation de l'article 3 (il cite les affaires Sarban c. Moldova, no 3456/05, 4 octobre 2005, Ramichvili et Kokhreidzé c. Géorgie, no 1704/06, 27 janvier 2009, Ashot Haroutyounian, précité, Khodorkovskiy c. Russie, no 5829/04, 31 mai 2011, et Piruzyan c. Arménie, no 33376/07, 26 juin 2012).
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 34334/04

  ASHOT HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  Thus, a violation of Article 3 was found in a case where the applicants, publicly known figures, were placed during a hearing on their detention, which was broadcast live throughout the country, in a barred dock resembling a metal cage and were guarded by special forces wearing black hood-like masks, despite the fact that there was no risk that the applicants might abscond or resort to violence during their transfer to the courthouse or at the hearings (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 98-102, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10

  MAMULASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists well-established case-law on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61 and 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 17775/09

  TSIKLAURI v. GEORGIA

  In this connection, it reiterates that there already exists an abundance of well-established case-law, including against Georgia, concerning lack of adequate medical treatment in prison and lack of effective remedies in this regard (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61, 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).