Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006).

  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; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006; and Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, pp. 1185-86, § 125).

• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  It was not disputed that the applicant was "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  Consideration was given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 67) and to the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).

 
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  The lack of a proper record of the applicant's detention is therefore sufficient for the Court to find that his confinement for several hours on 5 December 1999 was in breach of domestic law and contrary to the requirements implicit in Article 5 of the Convention for the proper recording of deprivations of liberty (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV, and Menesheva, cited above, §§ 87-89).
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  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; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006; and Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, pp. 1185-86, § 125).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  In the absence of such explanation the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 274, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  In view of the above, the Court finds that this period constituted unrecorded and unacknowledged detention, which, in the Court's constant view, is a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a most grave violation of that provision (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva, cited above, § 87; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 73, 2 October 2008; and Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, §§ 71-72, 4 November 2010; see also Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports 1998-III, and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 36552/05

  ZAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Pour illustrer ce point, le requérant cite de nombreux arrêts rendus par la Cour à ce sujet (Akoulinine et Babitch c. Russie, no 5742/02, § 52, 2 octobre 2008, Antipenkov c Russie, no 33470/03, §§ 67-69, 15 octobre 2009, Barabanchtchikov c. Russie, no 36220/02, § 61, 8 janvier 2009, Beloussov c. Russie, no 1748/02, § 55, 2 octobre 2008, Gladychev c. Russie, no 2807/04, § 64, 30 juillet 2009, Toporkov c. Russie, no 66688/01, § 53, 1er octobre 2009, et Vladimir Fedorov c. Russie, no 19223/04, § 72, 30 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  SIDORIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his 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 Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002-IV; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008; and Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  VENSKUTE v. LITHUANIA

  The absence of a record of such details 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; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; and Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008).