Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (9) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02
In this connection, the Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which detained applicants usually disposed of less than three and a half square metres of personal space it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify, in its own right, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 37-38, 7 June 2007; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 36-38, 10 May 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44, 16 June 2005, among others).The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01
NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).Those aspects are relevant in addition to the focal factor of the severe overcrowding to show that the applicant's transport conditions went beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 44, 2 June 2005).
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02
In this connection, the Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which detained applicants usually disposed of less than three and a half square metres of personal space it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify, in its own right, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 37-38, 7 June 2007; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 36-38, 10 May 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44, 16 June 2005, among others).The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).Even though the travel time did not exceed one hour, the Court considered such transport arrangements unacceptable (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118-120, ECHR 2005-X).
- EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86
B. ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02
After that date his detention no longer fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), but within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, for instance, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39).
- EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 18255/10
TOMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is supervising the execution of judgments in the case of Guliyev v. Russia (no. 24650/02, 19 June 2008) and forty-five repetitive cases, in which the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inhuman and degrading conditions in which the applicants had been transported.These issues are also the subject of well-established case-law of the Court, which found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a large number of similar Russian cases, starting with Khudoyorov v. Russia (no. 6847/02, §§ 112-20, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)) and Guliyev v. Russia (no. 24650/02, §§ 58-70, 19 June 2008), and also found a violation of Article 13 (see M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, §§ 80-86, 10 July 2014).
- EGMR - 41234/16 (anhängig)
TOMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
They relied on the Court's findings in the cases of Khudoyorov v. Russia (no. 6847/02, §§ 117-119, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)), Guliyev v. Russia (no. 24650/02, §§ 61-69, 19 June 2008), and Idalov v. Russia ([GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012).Having regard to the applicants" situation in the instant case and to the Court's findings in previous cases concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicants" transfer by road and by rail and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (see, in particular, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 117-119, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 61-69, 19 June 2008, and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012), as well as to a large number of pending individual cases concerning the same issues, is that situation indicative of a systemic problem and/or a structural deficiency of the Russian law warranting the application of the pilot-judgment procedure under Article 46 of the Convention (see, for general principles, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 180 et seq., 10 January 2012)?.
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 38270/11
NEDIM SENER c. TURQUIE
La Cour rappelle avoir considéré que la privation de sommeil appliquée durant de longues périodes ou combinée avec d'autres méthodes de coercition durant les interrogatoires peut constituer un traitement qui serait contraire à l'article 3 de la Convention (voir, entre autres, Irlande, précité, § 64, Yakovenko c. Ukraine, no 15825/06, § 85 et 89, 25 octobre 2007, et, mutatis mutandis, Gouliyev c. Russie, no 24650/02, § 64, 19 juin 2008.
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04
ROMOKHOV v. RUSSIA
Moreover, in a number of judgments the Court has held that the problem of overcrowding was of a structural nature and thus did not concern the applicants' personal situation (see Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 34, 19 June 2008; Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)). - EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 18496/16
ESKERKHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court reiterates that it has examined the issue of inhuman and degrading conditions of transport in many cases against Russia (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 117-19, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 61-70, 19 June 2008; and Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 55-60, 31 July 2008). - EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02
DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
In particular, the Court held in the relevant cases that the Government had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the applicants by a prosecutor, a court or another State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicants" detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern their personal situation (see Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 34, 19 June 2008; Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)). - EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 22935/10
ZVYAGIN v. RUSSIA
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the conditions of transport (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 112-20, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 47-70, 19 June 2008; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53-60, 31 July 2008; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012; and M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, §§ 78-79, 10 July 2014) and the confinement of defendants in metal cages in courtrooms (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 81-92, 14 June 2016). - EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 33071/12
SAYEROV v. RUSSIA
The Court reiterates that it has examined the issue of inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in many cases against Russia (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 117-119, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 61-69, 19 June 2008; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 55-60, 31 July 2008; and Idalov v. Russia ([GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012). - EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 67024/09
SVIRIDOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
The Court further recalls its position that, given the present state of Russian law, none of the remedies referred to by the Government, can be considered an effective remedy vis-à-vis inadequate conditions of transport (see M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, §§ 80-86, 10 July 2014, and Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 54-56, 19 June 2008).