Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of ...

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (31)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  The Court finds, moreover, that it should hold itself competent to examine facts which occurred during the proceedings and constitute a mere extension or the facts complained of at the outset (see Novokreshchin v. Russia, no. 40573/08, § 16, 27 November 2014; Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 7, Series A no. 9, and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 7, Series A no. 8).

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify his or her continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jabłoński v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).

• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify his or her continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jabłoński v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).

  This Convention provision proclaims not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial" but also lays down that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64 in fine, 15 February 2005, and Jabłoński v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).

• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  Shifting the burden of proof to the detained person in such matters is tantamount to overturning the rule of Article 5 of the Convention, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 67, 7 April 2005, and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 84-85, 26 July 2001).

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier, cited above, § 51; see also Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001; and Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 135, 23 October 2012).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

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

  It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in the domestic courts' decisions and of the established facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 72, 8 June 2006; Ilijkov, cited above, § 86; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013).

  It found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012 and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 79, 13 November 2012).

• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013).

  Having assessed a civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of the Civil Code, the Court considered that such a claim could not offer an applicant any other redress than a purely compensatory award and could not put an end to a situation where there was an ongoing violation, such as inadequate medical care (see Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).

• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013).

  It found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012 and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 79, 13 November 2012).

• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  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).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify his or her continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jabłoński v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  The Court finds, moreover, that it should hold itself competent to examine facts which occurred during the proceedings and constitute a mere extension or the facts complained of at the outset (see Novokreshchin v. Russia, no. 40573/08, § 16, 27 November 2014; Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 7, Series A no. 9, and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 7, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 21071/05

  WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

  NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 37546/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

  GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  The Court also does not lose sight of the fact that while authorising yet another extension of his detention the courts remained silent as to why those risks could not have been offset by any other means of ensuring his appearance at the trial (see Khayletdinov v. Russia, no. 2763/13, § 96, 12 January 2016; Zherebin, cited above, § 59; and Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 33023/07, § 85, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO

  The Court finds, moreover, that it should hold itself competent to examine facts which occurred during the proceedings and constitute a mere extension of the facts complained of at the outset (see Khayletdinov v. Russia, no. 2763/13, § 82, 12 January 2016; Novokreshchin v. Russia, no. 40573/08, § 16, 27 November 2014; Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 7, Series A no. 9; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 7, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 38777/04

  [ENG]

  The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Khayletdinov v. Russia, no. 2763/13, §§ 71-78, 12 January 2016; Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, §§ 104-12, 15 December 2015; Litvinov v. Russia, no. 32863/13, §§ 90-96, 22 March 2016; Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 80-88, 5 February 2015; and Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, §§ 68-76, 9 January 2014).

• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1484/16

  IZYUROV AND KUKHARCHUK v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Khayletdinov v. Russia, no. 2763/13, §§ 71-78, 12 January 2016; Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, §§ 104-12, 15 December 2015; Litvinov v. Russia, no. 32863/13, §§ 90-96, 22 March 2016; Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 80-88, 5 February 2015; and Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, §§ 68-76, 9 January 2014).
• EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 52873/11

  PETROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already found a violation in respect of similar issue (see Khayletdinov v. Russia, no. 2763/13, §§ 71-78, 12 January 2016, and M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, § 99, 10 July 2014).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52431/07

  [ENG]

  The Court will examine the applicant's complaint in the light of the general principles summarised, among other authorities, in Khayletdinov v. Russia (no. 2763/13, §§ 89-90, 12 January 2016).
• EGMR - 25402/15 (anhängig)

  TOSHMIRZAYEV v. RUSSIA

  See, for details, Khayletdinov v. Russia, no. 2763/13, §§ 60-61, 12 January 2016, and Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 75-79, 16 December 2010.
• EGMR, 14.12.2017 - 70371/13

  KOROTEYEV AND SITARSKIY v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Yankovskiy v. Russia, no. 24051/11, §§ 63-65, 25 July 2017; Khayletdinov v. Russia, no. 2763/13, §§ 71-78, 12 January 2016; Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, §§ 104-12, 15 December 2015; Litvinov v. Russia, no. 32863/13, §§ 90-96, 22 March 2016; Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 80-88, 5 February 2015; and Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, §§ 68-76, 9 January 2014).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 59705/12

  SERGEYEVA AND PROLETARSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has on many occasions been dissatisfied with such irregular testing, which fell short of the applicable standard of four CD4 cell counts and two viral load tests per year (see Khayletdinov v. Russia, no. 2763/13, § 75, 12 January 2016, and E.A. v. Russia, no. 44187/04, § 65, 23 May 2013).