Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
POPOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. ... 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c+6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d+6 Abs. 1 MRK
No violation of Art. 6-2 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-3-c+6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-d+6-1 Violations of Art. 3 Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 Not necessary to examine other complaint under Art. 34 Remainder inadmissible ...
Wird zitiert von ... (244) Zitiert selbst (21)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
In so far as the applicant may be understood to complain about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, the Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
To assess this evidence, the Court has adopted the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but has added that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
- EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
As the guarantees of paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Court will consider the complaint concerning the failure to examine Mrs R. and Mr Kh. in the hearing under the two provisions taken together (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25).More specifically, Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, in the "autonomous" sense given to that word in the Convention system (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25); it "does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf: its essential aim, as is indicated by the words 'under the same conditions', is a full 'equality of arms' in the matter" (see, among other authorities, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp.
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02
KRANZ v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above-mentioned principles, the Court finds that, inasmuch as the Government may be understood to raise the plea of non-exhaustion, they did not substantiate that the remedy the applicant had allegedly failed to exhaust was an effective one (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above-mentioned principles, the Court finds that, inasmuch as the Government may be understood to raise the plea of non-exhaustion, they did not substantiate that the remedy the applicant had allegedly failed to exhaust was an effective one (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003).
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII). - EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
The Court reiterates that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46). - EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88
Klaus Croissant
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
Notwithstanding the importance of a relationship of confidence between lawyer and client, the right to choose one's own counsel cannot be considered to be absolute (see Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B, § 29). - EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
As a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce (see, among other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, § 68). - EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
m for two inmates was noted as a relevant aspect in finding a violation of Article 3, albeit in that case the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
Where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34). - EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98
VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
- EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
- EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90
STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 25801/94
DULAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
- EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02
NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 38565/97
COTLET c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.01.2011 - 30696/09
Belgische Behörden hätten Asylbewerber nicht nach Griechenland abschieben dürfen
In certain particular situations, however, the Court may find it useful to indicate to the respondent State the type of measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the - often systemic - situation that gave rise to the finding of a violation (see, for example, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 263, 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
[ENG]
The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla, cited above, §§ 92-94, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, 13 July 2006 (IZ-77/1, Moscow, 2002-2004).
- EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12
VARGA v. HUNGARY and 78 other applications
The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 141; Kudla, cited above, §§ 92-94; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
- EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15
Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"
Furthermore, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 263, 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04 The Court firstly notes that in the present case it has found a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1. Inasmuch as the applicant's claim relates to the finding of that violation, the Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).
- EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 38263/08
Russland für Menschenrechtsverstöße nach Südkaukasuskrieg verurteilt - Russland …
The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14
EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen
The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 15.10.2026 - 52652/20
ZAKUTNIY v. UKRAINE and 7 other applications
The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee's state of health and treatment while in detention (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII), that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-06, 28 March 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, § 115), and that, where required by the nature of the medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and forms part of a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them only on a symptomatic basis (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006; Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; and Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, § 93, 27 November 2014). - EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12
FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL
[35] Following a finding of a breach of the right to question witnesses, the Oçalan clause was used in Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, § 75, 13 October 2005, Vaturi v. France, no. 75699/01, § 63, 13 April 2006, Zentar v. France, no. 17902/02, § 35, 13 April 2006, Balšán v. the Czech Republic, no. 1993/02, § 40, 18 July 2006 (wrongly cites the Somogyi case), Reiner and Others v. Romania, no. 1505/02, § 93, 27 September 2007 (wrongly cites the Gençel case), but the Gençel clause was used in Majadallah v. Italy, no. 62094/00, § 49, 19 October 2006, Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 263, 13 July 2006 (wrongly cites the Oçalan case), Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 112, 2 November 2010 (wrongly cites the Oçalan case), and Duško Ivanovski v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 10718/05, § 64, 24 April 2014. - EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
Furthermore, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13
LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05
MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12
Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo
- EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06
BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 6228/09
LAGUTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 10718/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02
POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02
VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.09.2026 - 64510/17
- EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 7334/13
MURSIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09
GORBULYA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 17092/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11
NOVRUK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 21613/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13
YAROSLAV BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 10216/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03
MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 4792/03
PETREA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
KORYAK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 6945/04
ILATOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.05.2009 - 5829/04
KHODORKOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 9373/15
M.A. c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 32036/10
BUTKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10
VESELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 7075/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08
IVKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 40828/12
MIRONOVAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13
STORY v. MALTA
- EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13
KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13
AMIROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12
RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12
ZADUMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12
KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04
YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02
BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 9852/03
HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09
BEKETOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13
TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 44694/13
KOLESNIKOVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03
PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02
GUBKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.05.2024 - 13186/20
TSAAVA AND KMUZOV v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 39611/18
GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (IV)
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06
VASENIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 42184/09
KUSHNIR v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 28403/05
VINTMAN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04
KARPENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01
LOPATA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10
SINISTAJ v. MONTENEGRO ant 2 other applications
- EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13
ANTONOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
PATRANIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 41828/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 1413/05
DAMIR SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05
MINDADZE AND NEMSITSVERIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 24989/17
ÐURIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 32863/13
LITVINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13
KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10
MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02
KHARCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 2807/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 13185/07
[FRE]
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14
KLIMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11
GORELOV (II) v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02
SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 31242/05
VLADIMIR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 32362/02
VISLOGUZOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.06.2026 - 39427/23
ISKRENOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 2613/13
AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 52160/13
MOXAMED ISMAACIIL v. MALTA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 28333/13
TSELOVALNIK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 5753/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 66583/11
BUDANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 47152/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 9607/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 30075/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 16831/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 2974/05
VASYUKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06
DERMANOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05
MECHENKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 77208/16
YEGOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 47737/10
SHAYKHATAROV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
- EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14
ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09
DRAGAN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 41038/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 19936/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 25.10.2012 - 18027/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 50098/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06
A.B. v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 36658/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 33780/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02
CAKA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03
MALENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 77018/01
POLYAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30628/02
UKHAN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30663/04
LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 37477/11
CENTRALISED RELIGIOUS ORGANISATION CENTRE OF KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS SOCIETIES IN …
- EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 796/07
CHUDALOVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 48343/16
BIGOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 27603/15
JATSÕSÕN v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13
KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08
M.S. v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 39584/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 13371/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 28018/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33530/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 1111/02
TROFIMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 1750/11
SAMOYLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 17716/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 14416/06
Russland muss gefoltertem Mann 50.000 Euro Entschädigung zahlen
- EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13
DENISOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 18967/07
DAVYDOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 35297/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 74266/01
ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02
MIRONOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10
SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 34636/09
GORYACHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14
YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13
KHALVASH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11
KUSHCH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 27426/13
MUSIAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 28020/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 50054/07
MITROFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 17012/09
IRAKLI MINDADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 918/02
SOLOVYEVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 67414/11
CUPIAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 51295/11
BADALYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15
GOLUBAR v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 37075/14
BRAGADIREANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 53120/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 38062/08
[FRE]
- EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 7848/06
SHUMIKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 5901/13
POZAIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 76317/11
BUBNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 4265/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09
ISMATULLAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 45517/04
KRIVOSEJS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14797/02
ALEKSANDR MATVEYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 13173/02
MUKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 16133/08
INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11982/02
NOVINSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 78168/13 (anhängig)
VANEYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2025 - 46737/20
KARAKASIDIS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 41548/17
SADOVOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 11620/17
YEVSTRATYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 48364/11
PROSKURNIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 37397/15
ZUBENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 65783/09
SHENOYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 74441/14
BOTNARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 8685/15
SIBANOV v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 38911/07
TUMANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 12863/14
MEKRAS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 48369/09
SZWED-WÓJTOWICZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 58530/08
NOGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 1542/13
BEÇAJ v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 50950/06
VAN DEILENA v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 29964/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
MIROSLAW ZIELINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 41188/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 63955/00
SUKHOVOY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04
MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 6954/02
MALTABAR AND MALTABAR v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 34167/15
KOLOMPAR v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 17730/08
POPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 35890/17
STARIKOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 47050/16
KRAVTSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 66812/17
BELIKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 57123/16
MAMOLINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 19813/16
VAKHROMEYEV AND PETROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 54424/14
STARKOV AND TISHCHENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2019 - 49284/09
BREGVADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 80251/13
NIKOTIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 53048/10
ISAYKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 19327/13
KAVKAZSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 686/12
BUJAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 4772/06
KOMAROV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65567/13
YIZHACHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 36125/14
BASTOVOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 71660/11
BARYSHEVSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 43553/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 429/12
TUNIS v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 38094/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 10799/06
JASHI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 35887/05
JANIASHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 35161/03
LEITENDORFS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36117/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02
ISAYEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 3522/04
SALMANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.12.2025 - 38151/16
SARIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 483/10
STANISLAV LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 71155/17
BARBEREAU v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 39070/08
[FRE]
- EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 9904/09
YUDIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 19291/07
[FRE]
- EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 13584/15
SYRYJCZYK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 24625/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 12436/11
ILKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9443/10
[FRE]
- EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 13182/04
KUTEPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 56539/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 4176/03
DANILIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 18218/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 67086/01
KOROBOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 11423/03
PELLO v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 30.04.2024 - 37630/19
BO? NJACKI v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 56941/11
STEFANIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 7257/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 10746/08
ADAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 16857/11
ANDRÁSIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".