Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,61090
EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05 (https://dejure.org/2007,61090)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.12.2007 - 25664/05 (https://dejure.org/2007,61090)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Dezember 2007 - 25664/05 (https://dejure.org/2007,61090)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,61090) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    LIND v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 8 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (99)Zitiert selbst (28)

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 61 et seq., 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (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; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

    The award should not exceed the amount awarded by the Court in the Kalashnikov case (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI).

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
    Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).

    In my dissenting opinion in the case of Dolgova v. Russia (no. 11886/05, 2 March 2006) I referred to the judgment in the case of Labita v. Italy ([GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV) to underline that "[w]hether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features" (Labita, § 152).

  • EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

    DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
    The applicant also submitted that the Court had already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in another application brought by the applicant's co-defendant (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, 2 March 2006).

    In my dissenting opinion in the case of Dolgova v. Russia (no. 11886/05, 2 March 2006) I referred to the judgment in the case of Labita v. Italy ([GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV) to underline that "[w]hether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features" (Labita, § 152).

  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

    Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
    The Court reiterates that any interference with an individual's right to respect for his private and family life will constitute a breach of Article 8, unless it was "in accordance with the law", pursued a legitimate aim or aims under paragraph 2, and was "necessary in a democratic society" in the sense that it was proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 45, ECHR 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

    KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts prolonged an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formula without addressing concrete facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

    Stögmüller ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
    However, the danger of an accused absconding does not result just because it is possible or easy for him to cross the frontier: there must be a whole set of circumstances, such as, particularly, the lack of well-established ties in the country, which give reason to suppose that the consequences and hazards of flight will seem to him to be a lesser evil than continued imprisonment (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

    SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
    46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
    Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

    BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts prolonged an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formula without addressing concrete facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
    46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 26761/95

    PLOSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 72639/01

    SANNINO c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 75833/01

    SCHEMKAMPER c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

  • EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

    CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

    JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

    NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

    MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

    KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

    PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

    ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

    SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 28957/02

    PSHEVECHERSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

    SULAOJA v. ESTONIA

  • EGMR, 30.10.2003 - 38654/97

    GORAL v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    Whereas the provision of four square metres remains the desirable standard of multi-occupancy accommodation, the Court has found that where the applicants have at their disposal less than three square metres of floor surface, the overcrowding must be considered to be so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, among many other authorities, Trepashkin (no. 2), § 113, and Kozhokar, § 96, both cited above; Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, § 70, 2 December 2010; Kovaleva v. Russia, no. 7782/04, § 56, 2 December 2010; Roman Karasev, cited above, §§ 48-49; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, § 35, 23 September 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov, § 93, and Gubin, § 57, both cited above; Salakhutdinov v. Russia, no. 43589/02, § 72, 11 February 2010; Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 98, 12 February 2009; Guliyev, cited above, § 32; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).

    Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, 6 December 2007 (IZ-77/2, Moscow, 2004-2005).

  • EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

    [ENG]

    For a summary of the relevant domestic law provisions governing the conditions and length of pre-trial detention, see the cases of Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 26-31, 2 March 2006, and Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 47-52, 6 December 2007.

    Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 42, 2 March 2006, and Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 78, 6 December 2007.

  • EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 7334/13

    MURSIC v. CROATIA

    "84. The Court has found in many previous cases that where the applicants had less than three square metres of floor space at their disposal, the overcrowding was considered to have been so severe as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, § 43, 31 July 2008; and Dmitriy Rozhin v. Russia, no. 4265/06, §§ 49 and 50, 23 October 2012)" (Tereshchenko v. Russia, 5 June 2014, § 84, emphasis added).

    In establishing whether or not in the specific circumstances of a case the overcrowding was severe enough to justify in its own right a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, other aspects of the physical conditions of detention may be taken into account (see, for example, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 59 and 61, 6 December 2007; and Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 62, 28 May 2009).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht