Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZELENIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, 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 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Zelenin v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 21120/07

  Although the use of force during arrest, even if resulting in injury, may fall outside the scope of Article 3 if the use of force was indispensable and resulted from the conduct of the applicant (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269), the Court also points out that where an individual, when taken into police custody, is in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 21120/07

  Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 21120/07

  Nonetheless, the Court has already considered that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II), even if the Government have not raised that objection (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).

• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 21120/07

  Although the use of force during arrest, even if resulting in injury, may fall outside the scope of Article 3 if the use of force was indispensable and resulted from the conduct of the applicant (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269), the Court also points out that where an individual, when taken into police custody, is in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 21120/07

  That compels the Court to establish the facts, drawing such inferences as it deems appropriate from that attitude (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 132, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 21120/07

  Nonetheless, the Court has already considered that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II), even if the Government have not raised that objection (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 9258/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 21120/07

  The Court reiterates that where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment (see, among many other authorities, Mrozowski v. Poland, no. 9258/04, § 26, 12 May 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  [ENG]

  The Court has previously ruled that in the context of the Russian legal system a "pre-investigation inquiry" alone is not capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible, since the opening of a criminal case and a criminal investigation are prerequisites for bringing charges against the alleged perpetrators which may then be examined by a court (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 132 and 135-36, 24 July 2014, and Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, §§ 56-57, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15
  It follows that, in the absence of a full-fledged criminal investigation opened in connection with credible allegations of ill-treatment, it is not necessary for the Court to examine in detail the measures taken at the national level with a view to identifying specific deficiencies and omissions on the part of the investigative authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, § 59, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 2991/06

  BELUGIN v. RUSSIA

  In such circumstances, the Court should regard the period of unlawful detention as the starting date for the calculation of the six-month period (see, for similar reasoning, Raush, cited above, § 66, and Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, § 67, 15 January 2015).

• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 29729/09

  [ENG]

  As to the substantive aspect of Article 2, it is sufficient for the Court to observe that this amount is substantially less than it has awarded in similar cases (see Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, § 92, 30 March 2017; Maslova v. Russia, no. 15980/12, §§ 61-62 and 106, 14 February 2017; Lykova v. Russia, no. 68736/11, § 135, 22 December 2015; Rudakov v. Russia, no. 43239/04, §§ 71-73, 28 October 2010; and Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, § 79, 15 January 2015; see also paragraph 114 below).
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 45115/09

  TRAPEZNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court further reiterates that in the context of the Russian legal system a "pre-investigation inquiry" alone is not capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible, since the opening of a criminal case and a criminal investigation are prerequisites for bringing charges against alleged perpetrators which may then be examined by a court (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 132 and 135-36, 24 July 2014, and Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, §§ 56-57, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 36480/13

  LAPTEV c. RUSSIE

  The Court further reiterates that in the context of the Russian legal system, a "pre-investigation inquiry" alone is not capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible, since the opening of a criminal case and a criminal investigation are prerequisites for bringing charges against alleged perpetrators which may then be examined by a court (see Trapeznikova and Others, cited above, § 35; Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 132 and 135-36, 24 July 2014; and Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, §§ 56-57, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 40852/05

  [ENG]

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, § 42, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 22298/11

  LUZYANINA v. RUSSIA

  In particular, if a pre-investigation inquiry was not followed by a criminal investigation, it alone was incapable of leading to the punishment of those responsible (she cited Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, §§ 56-57, 15 January 2015).