Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RADZHAB MAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 20933/08

  The relevant domestic law provisions concerning privacy and interception of communications are set out in the judgment of Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 15-138, ECHR 2015.

  A prosecutor also lacks independence and has a limited scope of review (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 292, ECHR 2015, with further references).

• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 61147/13

  TREVOGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court further refers to its earlier findings that (1) the Russian legislation which permitted the police to conduct secret surveillance without judicial authorisation fell short of the standards of the quality of law set out in Article 8 of the Convention (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 73-83, 10 March 2009) and (2) the refusal on the part of the domestic authorities to disclose a surveillance authorisation to the applicants without a valid reason deprived them of any possibility to have the lawfulness of the surveillance measures and their "necessity in a democratic society" reviewed and amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, ? antare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 60-62, 31 March 2016; Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 80-84, 20 December 2016; and Zubkov and Others, cited above, §§ 122-32).
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  SIGURÐUR EINARSSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX, Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 21200/05

  AKHLYUSTIN v. RUSSIA

  Although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).

 
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 43478/11

  HAMBARDZUMYAN v. ARMENIA

  Although those courts were empowered to examine questions relating to the admissibility of evidence, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for her private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106 and 107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 72-74, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 40-44, 31 March 2016, and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 52673/07

  GRIGORYEV c. RUSSIE

  Dans ces circonstances particulières, la Cour trouve qu'il serait excessif d'exiger du requérant de former un recours en justice séparé contre la décision susmentionnée tendant au même but (comparer avec Akoulinine et Babitch c. Russie, no 5742/02, §§ 26-33, 2 octobre 2008 (affaire dans laquelle les requérants n'ont appris l'existence d'une décision de refus d'ouverture d'une enquête que lors de leur procès pénal et n'ont pas formé de recours séparé contre cette décision), ainsi qu'avec Vladimir Fedorov c. Russie, no 19223/04, §§ 47-49, 30 juillet 2009, Lopata c. Russie, no 72250/01, §§ 47-49, 13 juillet 2010, Dmitrachkov c. Russie, no 18825/02, §§ 35-39, 16 septembre 2010, et Markaryan c. Russie, no 12102/05, § 44, 4 avril 2013 (affaires dans lesquelles les tribunaux ayant condamné les requérants ont de facto examiné le bien-fondé des décisions portant refus d'ouverture d'une enquête pénale alors que les requérants n'avaient pas formellement contesté ces décisions) ; voir, a contrario, Vyatkin c. Russie (déc.), no 15811/03, 24 janvier 2012, Afonichev c. Russie (déc.) [comité], no 26344/06, 2 juin 2015, et Radzhab Magomedov c. Russie, no 20933/08, 20 décembre 2016 (affaires dans lesquelles les requérants n'ont pas contesté les décisions portant refus d'ouverture d'une enquête pénale et n'ont pas formulé de griefs relatifs à des mauvais traitements devant les juridictions amenées à statuer sur leur responsabilité pénale)).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  ZUBKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court has occasionally accepted that that remedy was apparently effective and sufficient and therefore the applicants who had pursued it complied with the exhaustion requirement (see Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016, where the applicants had challenged the admissibility of the evidence obtained as a result of the allegedly unlawful covert surveillance measures in the criminal proceedings against them).
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention à raison des conditions de détention dans des maisons d'arrêt (voir, par exemple, Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, §§ 34-43, 20 janvier 2005, Ananyev et autres c. Russie, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, §§ 160-166, 10 janvier 2012, Kolunov c. Russie, no 26436/05, §§ 30-38, 9 octobre 2012, Zentsov et autres c. Russie, no 35297/05, §§ 38-45, 23 octobre 2012, Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, §§ 36-44, 11 avril 2013, et Dudchenko c. Russie, no 37717/05, §§ 116-123, 7 novembre 2017) ainsi qu'à raison des conditions de transport de détenus (voir, par exemple, Svetlana Kazmina c. Russie, no 8609/04, §§ 76-79, 2 décembre 2010, M.S. c. Russie, no 8589/08, §§ 71-77, 10 juillet 2014, Yaroslav Belousov c. Russie, nos 2653/13 et 60980/14, §§ 103-111, 4 octobre 2016, et Radzhab Magomedov c. Russie, no 20933/08, §§ 59-62, 20 décembre 2016).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 59589/10

  KONSTANTIN MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA

  Although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva, cited above, § 59; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 44045/05

  MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA

  Although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 78144/13

  YUDINTSEV AND SHISTEROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already established, in a number of earlier cases, that the refusal on the part of the domestic authorities to disclose a surveillance authorisation to the applicants without a valid reason deprived them of any possibility to have the lawfulness of the surveillance measures and their "necessity in a democratic society" reviewed and amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, ? antare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 60-62, 31 March 2016; Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 80-84, 20 December 2016; and Zubkov and Others, cited above, §§ 122-32).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 18791/13

  NEKRASOV c. RUSSIE