Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORTKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bortkevich v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  When a person is held in detention the State must ensure that he is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his 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 Valasinas, cited above, § 102, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  The Court reiterates that the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party, and to present his case under conditions which do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  The assessment of this minimum level of severity 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 Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 100-01, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  When assessing conditions of detention, their cumulative effects must be considered, as well as the applicant's specific allegations (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

  KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  The Court reiterates that the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party, and to present his case under conditions which do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  In the case of Khuzhin and Others v. Russia (no. 13470/02, §§ 53 et seq., 23 October 2008) the Court found that, by refusing to ensure that imprisoned applicants could attend hearings, and by failing to consider other legal means of ensuring their effective participation in defamation proceedings, the Russian courts had violated the principle of equality of arms.
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  However, the Court does not find it necessary to establish the veracity of these allegations as, in any event, it considers that in view of the short duration of the applicant's stays in that facility, which did not exceed three days on any given occasion and amounted to eleven days altogether between February and April 2005, it cannot be said that their cumulative effect could have been such as to attain the minimum level of severity and to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see, by contrast, Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 46-54, 21 June 2007; Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 36-46, 19 June 2008; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 81-84, 17 December 2009; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 84-96, 12 June 2008; Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 22-29, 29 April 2010; and Eldar Imanov and Azhdar Imanov v. Russia, no. 6887/02, §§ 121-128, 16 December 2010; in which the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicants" detention in temporary detention facilities).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  However, the Court does not find it necessary to establish the veracity of these allegations as, in any event, it considers that in view of the short duration of the applicant's stays in that facility, which did not exceed three days on any given occasion and amounted to eleven days altogether between February and April 2005, it cannot be said that their cumulative effect could have been such as to attain the minimum level of severity and to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see, by contrast, Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 46-54, 21 June 2007; Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 36-46, 19 June 2008; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 81-84, 17 December 2009; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 84-96, 12 June 2008; Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 22-29, 29 April 2010; and Eldar Imanov and Azhdar Imanov v. Russia, no. 6887/02, §§ 121-128, 16 December 2010; in which the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicants" detention in temporary detention facilities).
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

  GULIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 27359/05

  However, the Court does not find it necessary to establish the veracity of these allegations as, in any event, it considers that in view of the short duration of the applicant's stays in that facility, which did not exceed three days on any given occasion and amounted to eleven days altogether between February and April 2005, it cannot be said that their cumulative effect could have been such as to attain the minimum level of severity and to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see, by contrast, Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 46-54, 21 June 2007; Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 36-46, 19 June 2008; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 81-84, 17 December 2009; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 84-96, 12 June 2008; Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 22-29, 29 April 2010; and Eldar Imanov and Azhdar Imanov v. Russia, no. 6887/02, §§ 121-128, 16 December 2010; in which the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicants" detention in temporary detention facilities).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  KARPENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  ROMAN KARASEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 6887/02

  ELDAR IMANOV AND AZHDAR IMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 78145/01

  KOVALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06

  KHRISTOFOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08

  KABWE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 27236/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has found a violation of Article 6 in a large number of cases in which Russian courts refused to secure attendance of imprisoned applicants wishing to take part in the hearing on their civil claims (see, in addition to the cases cited above, Dmitriyev v. Russia, no. 40044/12, § 48-51, 24 October 2013; Bortkevich v. Russia, no. 27359/05, §§ 63-69, 2 October 2012; Karpenko v. Russia, no. 5605/04, § 89-94, 13 March 2012; Rozhin v. Russia, no. 50098/07, §§ 31-34, 6 December 2011; and Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 204-08, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 38054/05

  [ENG]

  The Court notes that, as in many similar cases against Russia, the applicants were denied leave to appear by reference to the absence of any legal norm making their presence mandatory (see Bortkevich v. Russia, no. 27359/05, §§ 63-69, 2 October 2012; Karpenko v. Russia, no. 5605/04, §§ 89-94, 13 March 2012; Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, § 68, 25 November 2010; Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 204-08, 27 May 2010; and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, § 107, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 40044/12

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Having studied the terms of the Government's declaration, the Court is satisfied that the Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant's right to a fair hearing on account of his absence from the civil proceedings and also offered compensation in the amount which was not unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (see, for recent examples, Bortkevich v. Russia, no. 27359/05, § 75, 2 October 2012, and Rozhin v. Russia, no. 50098/07, § 39, 6 December 2011).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 32013/07

  [ENG]

  But, as in many similar cases against Russia, he was refused leave to appear solely by reference to the absence of any legal rule making his presence mandatory (see Bortkevich v. Russia, no. 27359/05, §§ 63-69, 2 October 2012; Karpenko v. Russia, no. 5605/04, §§ 89-94, 13 March 2012; Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, § 68, 25 November 2010; Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 204-08, 27 May 2010; and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, § 107, 17 December 2009, see also paragraph 14 above).