Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,58110) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MIRONOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3 MRK
No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
- EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, in particular, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Labzov v. Russia, cited above, § 44 et seq.; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 215 et seq., 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, in particular, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Labzov v. Russia, cited above, § 44 et seq.; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 215 et seq., 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, in particular, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Labzov v. Russia, cited above, § 44 et seq.; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 215 et seq., 13 July 2006).
- EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
POPOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, in particular, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Labzov v. Russia, cited above, § 44 et seq.; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 215 et seq., 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01
NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, in particular, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Labzov v. Russia, cited above, § 44 et seq.; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 215 et seq., 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
Nevertheless, under this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
To assess this evidence, the Court has adopted the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but has added that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
Where an individual is taken into police custody 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 an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34). - EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98
VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 100-101, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
Where an individual is taken into police custody 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 an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34).
- EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 16284/18
PARFENOV AND BARABASH v. RUSSIA
The Court observes that it applies a similar approach to cases concerning Article 5 § 3 of the Convention by calculating the six-month time-limit for applicants to complain about the unreasonably long detention on remand from the date of the trial judgment, irrespective of the fact if an appeal may be pending (see Novinskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 11982/02, § 107, 6 December 2007; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02.25 January 2007; Kositsyn v. Russia (dec.), no. 69535/01, 19 October 2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, 5 October 2006; Daktaras v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000). - EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 19816/09
BAMBAYEV v. RUSSIA
Se référant à l'arrêt Mironov c. Russie (no 22625/02, §§ 57-64, 8 novembre 2007), il est d'avis que les autorités internes ont de ce fait rempli l'obligation procédurale d'effectuer un prompt examen médical des personnes susceptibles d'avoir été victimes de mauvais traitements.
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,66863) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
- EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
The provision is violated only if this is made impossible (see Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, § 53). - EKMR, 15.10.1980 - 8403/78
JESPERS v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
The facilities which must be granted to the accused are restricted to those which assist or may assist him in the preparation of his defence (see Jespers v. Belgium, no. 8403/78, Commission's report of 14 December 1981, DR 27, p. 61, §§ 55, 57).
- EGMR, 23.04.1998 - 22885/93
BERNARD v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole were fair (see, inter alia, Bernard v. France, judgment of 23 April 1998, no. 22885/93, § 37, ECHR 1998-II). - EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88
Klaus Croissant
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
However, they can override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B., § 29). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
The competent national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene only if a failure by legal-aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or is sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, p. 33, § 65). - EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
As a rule, these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him or her either when that witness is making a statement or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 21, § 49). - EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
The task of the Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 26). - EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
It would clearly have been preferable for the witnesses to have given evidence in person, but, in view of the authorities" efforts, their unavailability did not in itself make it necessary to halt the prosecution (see Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21). - EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90
STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
Such rights are implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained in sub-paragraphs (c) and (e) of Article 6 § 3 (see, among other authorities, Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, pp. 10-11, § 26). - EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97
A.M. v. ITALY
- EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02
SCHEPER v. THE NETHERLANDS
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.