Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRIGORYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Grigoryev v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  Since this right is of an absolute character, the Court exceptionally finds it possible to award the applicant 7, 500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008, and Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011, with further references), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

  CHUDUN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  Since this right is of an absolute character, the Court exceptionally finds it possible to award the applicant 7, 500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008, and Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011, with further references), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  The Court reiterates that in criminal matters the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 42, Series A no. 35), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he or she would be prosecuted, or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 19, Series A no. 7; Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 8; and Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 110, Series A no. 13).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  The Court reiterates that in criminal matters the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 42, Series A no. 35), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he or she would be prosecuted, or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 19, Series A no. 7; Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 8; and Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 110, Series A no. 13).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  The Court reiterates that in criminal matters the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 42, Series A no. 35), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he or she would be prosecuted, or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 19, Series A no. 7; Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 8; and Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 110, Series A no. 13).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  The Court reiterates that in criminal matters the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 42, Series A no. 35), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he or she would be prosecuted, or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 19, Series A no. 7; Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 8; and Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 110, Series A no. 13).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Gladyshev, cited above, § 52; Oleg Nikitin, cited above, § 45; and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  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 Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 107, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  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 Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 107, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA

• EGMR - 42900/14 (anhängig)

  DRUZHKOV v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications

  - did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII; Grigoryev v. Russia, no. 22663/06, § 83, 23 October 2012, Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 90, 30 May 2013, Minikayev v. Russia, no. 630/08, §§ 59-60, 5 January 2016)?.
• EGMR - 11133/11 (anhängig)

  PYNKO v. RUSSIA and 8 other applications

  - did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII; Grigoryev v. Russia, no. 22663/06, § 83, 23 October 2012, Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 90, 30 May 2013, Minikayev v. Russia, no. 630/08, §§ 59-60, 5 January 2016)?.
• EGMR - 8187/08 (anhängig)

  SHAVAYEV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  - did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII; Grigoryev v. Russia, no. 22663/06, § 83, 23 October 2012; Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 90, 30 May 2013; and Minikayev v. Russia, no. 630/08, §§ 59-60, 5 January 2016)?.

 
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  SNYATOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  The applicable general principles have been summarised in Idalov (cited above § 186); Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC] (no. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI); Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], (no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II); Grigoryev v. Russia (no. 22663/06, §§ 90 and 92, 23 October 2012); and Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia (no. 41833/04, §§ 143-44, 27 January 2011).
• EGMR - 3490/11 (anhängig)

  KOTKOV v. RUSSIA

  - did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII; Grigoryev v. Russia, no. 22663/06, § 83, 23 October 2012; Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 90, 30 May 2013; and Minikayev v. Russia, no. 630/08, §§ 59-60, 5 January 2016)?.
• EGMR - 31236/17 (anhängig)

  VAKHAPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  - did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the applicants" search (see Tali v. Estonia, no. 66393/10, § 76, 13 February 2014; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII; Grigoryev v. Russia, no. 22663/06, § 83, 23 October 2012; Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 90, 30 May 2013; and Minikayev v. Russia, no. 630/08, §§ 59-60, 5 January 2016)?.