Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68339
EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,68339)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.12.2009 - 20075/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,68339)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Dezember 2009 - 20075/03 (https://dejure.org/2009,68339)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68339) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (70)Zitiert selbst (27)

  • EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

    KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
    The Court has previously found a violation of the right to a "public and fair hearing" in a case where a Russian court, after having refused leave to appear to the imprisoned applicants, who had wished to make oral submissions on their defamation claim, failed to consider other legal possibilities for securing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, §§ 53 et seq., 23 October 2008).

    Hence, the applicant was obviously unable to decide on a further course of action for the defence of his rights until such time as the decision refusing him leave to appear was communicated to him (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 107, 23 October 2008).

  • EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

    MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
    However, it reiterates its finding made in a number of cases that financial or logistical difficulties, as well as the lack of a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, may not be cited by the domestic authorities as circumstances relieving them of their obligation to organise the State's penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees (see, among other authorities, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006).

    Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006).

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

    LABZOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
    However, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the amount of RUB 1, 500 awarded for more than three months of detention, that is, a rate of RUB 14.5 per day, was substantially lower than what it generally awards in comparable Russian cases (see, for example, Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, 16 June 2005, and Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, 21 June 2007).

    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  • EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
    The Court reiterates that the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present his case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
    Article 6 § 1 leaves to the State a free choice of the means to be used in guaranteeing litigants these rights (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2005-II).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

    MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

    VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
    The Court therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached by the domestic courts" alleged failure to communicate to the applicant the complete set of documents submitted by the defendant (see Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002, and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 107, 24 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

    NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

    KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02

    SUTYAGIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 69889/01

    GROSHEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15435/03

    SHULEPOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04

    GRIDIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 72701/01

    YAKOVLEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 78145/01

    KOVALEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02

    NOVINSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 32106/96

    KOMANICKY v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

    Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  • EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

    KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

  • EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

    DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

    KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

    GULIYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

    NARDONE c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 49438/99

    STAYKOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

    GLADKIY v. RUSSIA

    However, relying on submissions by his former fellow inmates whose complaints about the conditions of detention in facility no. IZ-39/1 had already been examined by the Court (see, among other authorities, Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 123-133, 27 May 2010, and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 89-99, 17 December 2009), he alleged that the cell which measured 21 square metres had had eight sleeping places and had usually housed 24 inmates.

    They noted that the Court's findings in respect of other individuals who had been detained in facility no. IZ-39/1 and had complained to the Court under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of their detention in that facility (for instance, Mr Artyomov, application no. 14146/02, or Mr Shilbergs, application no. 20075/03) were inapplicable to the circumstances of the applicant's case because neither Mr Artyomov nor Mr Shilbergs had been detained in the same cells as the applicant.

    Citing the report of the Ombudsman of the Kaliningrad Region (see paragraph 37 above), the domestic courts' judgments (see paragraphs 20 and 27 above) and the Court's findings in the cases of Artyomov v. Russia (see no. 14146/02, judgment of 27 May 2010), Shilbergs v. Russia (no. 20075/03, judgment of 17 December 2009), and Skorobogatykh v. Russia (no. 4871/03, judgment of 22 December 2009), the applicant insisted that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading.

    More specifically, the Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 3 on account of the detention of applicants in overcrowded conditions in detention facility no. IZ-39/1 at the time when the applicant in the present case was detained there (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 123-133, 27 May 2010; Kositsyn v. Russia, no. 69535/01, §§ 21-31, 12 May 2010; and Shilbergs v. Russia, §§ 89-99, no. 20075/03, 17 December 2009).

    In fact, he effectively exercised that right before the Tsentralniy District Court, which held every hearing in his presence (see, by contrast, Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 108-110, 17 December 2009).

  • EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 61467/12

    REZMIVES c. ROUMANIE et 3 autres affaires

    Même lorsque la possibilité d'obtenir une indemnité est prévue, une voie de recours peut ne pas offrir de chances raisonnables de succès, notamment lorsque l'octroi d'une indemnisation est conditionné à l'établissement d'une faute de la part des autorités (Ananyev et autres, précité, § 113 ; Roman Karasev c. Russie, no 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 novembre 2010 ; et Shilbergs c. Russie, no 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 décembre 2009).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

    [ENG]

    The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht