Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOMISSAROVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 18, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  In assessing whether the authorities have struck a fair balance between the right of detainees to respect for family life and the legitimate aims provided for in Article 8 § 2, such as protection of public safety and prevention of disorder or crime, the Court has analysed the particular circumstances of individual applicants, including the duration and the nature of the restrictions on contact with their spouses or other family members, the reasons given for such restrictions, the grounds for detention, the existence of the risk of collusion or other factors hampering the investigation or trial, other measures taken, such as the censorship of correspondence, or the authorities" consideration of alternative means, for example subjection of contact to supervision by a prison officer (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts); Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, §§ 185-190, 29 April 2003; Rutecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 18880/07, 3 November 2009; and Glinowiecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 32540/07, 2 February 2010, in which the relevant complaint was rejected as manifestly ill-founded or no violation of Article 8 was found; see further Klamecki, cited above, §§ 148-152; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, §§ 130-133, 17 July 2007; Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470/00, §§ 47-48, 20 May 2008; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 255, 9 October 2008, in which a violation of Article 8 was found).
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  In assessing whether the authorities have struck a fair balance between the right of detainees to respect for family life and the legitimate aims provided for in Article 8 § 2, such as protection of public safety and prevention of disorder or crime, the Court has analysed the particular circumstances of individual applicants, including the duration and the nature of the restrictions on contact with their spouses or other family members, the reasons given for such restrictions, the grounds for detention, the existence of the risk of collusion or other factors hampering the investigation or trial, other measures taken, such as the censorship of correspondence, or the authorities" consideration of alternative means, for example subjection of contact to supervision by a prison officer (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts); Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, §§ 185-190, 29 April 2003; Rutecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 18880/07, 3 November 2009; and Glinowiecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 32540/07, 2 February 2010, in which the relevant complaint was rejected as manifestly ill-founded or no violation of Article 8 was found; see further Klamecki, cited above, §§ 148-152; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, §§ 130-133, 17 July 2007; Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470/00, §§ 47-48, 20 May 2008; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 255, 9 October 2008, in which a violation of Article 8 was found).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  It must be recognised that in general it is justifiable to apply to prisoners a uniform regime avoiding any appearance of arbitrariness or discrimination (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 75, Series A no. 131).

• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  The Court has found that bans on family visits were not "in accordance with the law" where domestic law did not meet the "quality of law" requirements (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 107, 13 September 2005; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 171-173, 18 January 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 125-126, 12 June 2008; and Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, §§ 88-89, 4 March 2010).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  ALIEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  In assessing whether the authorities have struck a fair balance between the right of detainees to respect for family life and the legitimate aims provided for in Article 8 § 2, such as protection of public safety and prevention of disorder or crime, the Court has analysed the particular circumstances of individual applicants, including the duration and the nature of the restrictions on contact with their spouses or other family members, the reasons given for such restrictions, the grounds for detention, the existence of the risk of collusion or other factors hampering the investigation or trial, other measures taken, such as the censorship of correspondence, or the authorities" consideration of alternative means, for example subjection of contact to supervision by a prison officer (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts); Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, §§ 185-190, 29 April 2003; Rutecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 18880/07, 3 November 2009; and Glinowiecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 32540/07, 2 February 2010, in which the relevant complaint was rejected as manifestly ill-founded or no violation of Article 8 was found; see further Klamecki, cited above, §§ 148-152; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, §§ 130-133, 17 July 2007; Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470/00, §§ 47-48, 20 May 2008; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 255, 9 October 2008, in which a violation of Article 8 was found).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  The Court has found that bans on family visits were not "in accordance with the law" where domestic law did not meet the "quality of law" requirements (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 107, 13 September 2005; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 171-173, 18 January 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 125-126, 12 June 2008; and Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, §§ 88-89, 4 March 2010).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  In assessing whether the authorities have struck a fair balance between the right of detainees to respect for family life and the legitimate aims provided for in Article 8 § 2, such as protection of public safety and prevention of disorder or crime, the Court has analysed the particular circumstances of individual applicants, including the duration and the nature of the restrictions on contact with their spouses or other family members, the reasons given for such restrictions, the grounds for detention, the existence of the risk of collusion or other factors hampering the investigation or trial, other measures taken, such as the censorship of correspondence, or the authorities" consideration of alternative means, for example subjection of contact to supervision by a prison officer (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts); Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, §§ 185-190, 29 April 2003; Rutecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 18880/07, 3 November 2009; and Glinowiecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 32540/07, 2 February 2010, in which the relevant complaint was rejected as manifestly ill-founded or no violation of Article 8 was found; see further Klamecki, cited above, §§ 148-152; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, §§ 130-133, 17 July 2007; Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470/00, §§ 47-48, 20 May 2008; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 255, 9 October 2008, in which a violation of Article 8 was found).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  The Court has found that bans on family visits were not "in accordance with the law" where domestic law did not meet the "quality of law" requirements (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 107, 13 September 2005; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 171-173, 18 January 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 125-126, 12 June 2008; and Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, §§ 88-89, 4 March 2010).
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  SHALIMOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  The Court has found that bans on family visits were not "in accordance with the law" where domestic law did not meet the "quality of law" requirements (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 107, 13 September 2005; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 171-173, 18 January 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 125-126, 12 June 2008; and Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, §§ 88-89, 4 March 2010).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 24205/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  When assessing whether an interference was "necessary" the Court will take into account the margin of appreciation left to the State authorities, in particular, in view of the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment (see Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003; Boguslaw Krawczak v. Poland, no. 24205/06, §§ 108-110, 31 May 2011; and Boyle and Rice, cited above, § 74).
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 55470/00

  FERLA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 18880/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 32540/07

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 67482/14

  LEBOIS v. BULGARIA

  The above-mentioned considerations are simply factors to be taken into account in assessing whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" (see Komissarova v. Russia (dec.), no. 25537/08, § 20 in fine, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  [ENG]

  The Court is inclined to give credence to this submission (see, for comparison, Cistiakov v. Latvia, no. 67275/01, § 86, 8 February 2007, and Komissarova v. Russia (dec.), no. 25537/08, 3 July 2012).