Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORIS POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 57 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-5 Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  The Court has examined this complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 126, ECHR 2001-VIII; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 108, 30 November 2004; and Anatoliy Tarasov v. Russia, no. 3950/02, § 50, 18 February 2010).
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  KLYAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  The Court has examined this complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 126, ECHR 2001-VIII; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 108, 30 November 2004; and Anatoliy Tarasov v. Russia, no. 3950/02, § 50, 18 February 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  In determining whether an interference is "necessary in a democratic society" regard may be had to the State's margin of appreciation (see, amongst other authorities, Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 77, ECHR 2007-...).

 
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 3950/02

  ANATOLIY TARASOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  The Court has examined this complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 126, ECHR 2001-VIII; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 108, 30 November 2004; and Anatoliy Tarasov v. Russia, no. 3950/02, § 50, 18 February 2010).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  Such an interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 84, Series A no. 61, and Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, § 95, 18 November 2008).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  The Court considers in that connection that, as a rule, correspondence between an actual or prospective applicant and his or her representative before the Court should be privileged (see also references to the relevant Council of Europe documents in paragraphs 42 and 43 above, and Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, §§ 49 and 50, Series A no. 233).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  The Court has consistently held that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  The assessment of this level 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, among other authorities, Kudla [GC], cited above, § 91, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 28945/95

  T.P. ET K.M. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  It was not suggested that he failed to comply with any formal or procedural requirements (see Francisco v. France (dec.), no. 38945/97, 29 August 2000; see also, mutatis mutandis, T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, §§ 107-110, ECHR 2001-V (extracts), and A.D. and O.D. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28680/06, §§ 102-104, 16 March 2010).
• EGMR, 13.11.2001 - 38945/97

  FRANCISCO c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  It was not suggested that he failed to comply with any formal or procedural requirements (see Francisco v. France (dec.), no. 38945/97, 29 August 2000; see also, mutatis mutandis, T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, §§ 107-110, ECHR 2001-V (extracts), and A.D. and O.D. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28680/06, §§ 102-104, 16 March 2010).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

  PANTEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 9647/02

  SHILYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 2512/04

  NOLAN AND K. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 28680/06

  A.D. AND O.D. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 67263/01

  AFFAIRES MOUISEL ET HENAF CONTRE LA FRANCE

• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 52342/20

  LAVROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement in a metal cage during court hearings; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101-11, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, related to lengthy review of detention; Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, §§ 78-87, 28 October 2010, concerning lack of, or inadequate, compensation in respect of unlawful detention; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 179-91, and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, regarding the lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of an administrative detention.
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  VALERIY SAMOYLOV v. RUSSIA

  Failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see, in various contexts, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-IV; Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, §§ 27-35, 23 September 2010; and Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, §§ 65-67, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 59133/11

  FERNANDES PEDROSO c. PORTUGAL

  La Cour ne peut qu'en déduire que les juridictions nationales n'ont pas interprété et appliqué le droit interne dans l'esprit de l'article 5 §§ 1 et 4 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Houtman et Meeus c. Belgique, no 22945/07, § 46, 17 mars 2009, et Boris Popov c. Russie, no 23284/04, § 86, 28 octobre 2010).

 
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 40132/16

  SALMANOV v. SLOVAKIA

  Along with his constitutional complaint, he also lodged a claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in such a way that no reproach can be made under the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies (in that respect, see also Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, § 84, 28 October 2010, and Michalák v. Slovakia, no. 30157/03, §§ 139-141 and 206, 8 February 2011).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  SAKHVADZE v. RUSSIA

  Failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the plausibility of the applicant's allegations (see, in various contexts, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-IV; Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, §§ 27-35, 23 September 2010; and Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, §§ 65-67, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  VLADIMIR VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see, in various contexts, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-IV; Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, §§ 27-35, 23 September 2010, and Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, §§ 65-67, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 17779/08

  S. v. ESTONIA

  Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and shall therefore review whether this law has been complied with (see, inter alia, Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 73, ECHR 2009-...; Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; and Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, § 69, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 9798/12

  RESIN v. RUSSIA

  In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, the danger of the person's absconding or causing injury or damage (see Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 56, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, § 49, ECHR 2003-XI; Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, § 51, 28 October 2010; Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, § 38, 20 January 2011).