Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VLADIMIR VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Vladimir Vasilyev v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 28370/05
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  RIEPAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  For instance, as a way of securing the applicant's participation in the proceedings, the national authorities could have held a session by way of a video link or in the detention facility, in so far as it was possible under the rules on court jurisdiction (see paragraph 42 above, and, for the relevant principles, Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, §§ 27-42, ECHR 2000-XII, and Marcello Viola v. Italy, no. 45106/04, § 49 et seq., ECHR 2006-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  Only where a party would not receive a fair hearing without the provision of legal aid, with reference to all the facts and circumstances of the case, will Article 6 require legal aid, including legal representation or assistance (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 61, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  There may be proceedings in which an oral hearing may not be required: for example where there are no issues of credibility or contested issues which necessitate a hearing and the courts may fairly and reasonably decide the case on the basis of the parties" submissions and other written materials (see, among others, Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 74, ECHR 2007-IV).

 
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  Although the earlier cases emphasised that a hearing must be held before a court of first and only instance unless there were exceptional circumstances that justified dispensing with one (see, for instance, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, cited above, § 64; Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), judgment of 23 February 1994, §§ 21 and 22, Series A no. 283-A; and Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2) judgment of 19 February 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-I), the Court has clarified that the character of the circumstances that may justify dispensing with an oral hearing essentially comes down to the nature of the issues to be decided by the national court, not to the frequency of such situations.
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  The Court has further acknowledged that the national authorities may have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy and has found, for example, that the systematic holding of hearings could be an obstacle to the particular diligence required in social security cases and ultimately prevent compliance with the reasonable-time requirement of Article 6 § 1 (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  Regarding the issue of medical care in detention facilities, the Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person 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 ensured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  Thus, although Article 3 cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds save for exceptional cases (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI, and Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001), a lack of appropriate medical treatment may raise an issue under Article 3, even if the applicant's state of health does not require his immediate release.
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  Failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see, in various contexts, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-IV; Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, §§ 27-35, 23 September 2010, and Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, §§ 65-67, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 33929/03

  ALEKSANDR LEONIDOVICH IVANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  BORIS POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE

  La Cour trouve par conséquent que le requérant n'a pas présenté d'arguments suffisants et convaincants pour démontrer que le manque de soins dentaires allégué était tel pour constituer une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention (Vladimir Vassilyev c. Russie, no 28370/05, § 66, 10 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 10067/11

  PATSOS c. GRÈCE

  Cela étant, pour examiner la compatibilité du maintien en détention d'un requérant avec un état de santé préoccupant, la Cour doit tenir compte notamment de trois éléments, à savoir: a) la situation du détenu, b) la qualité des soins dispensés et c) l'opportunité de maintenir la détention au vu de l'état de santé de l'intéressé (Farbtuhs c. Lettonie, no 4672/02, § 53, 2 décembre 2004, Sakkopoulos précité, § 39, Enea c. Italie, [GC], no 74912/01, § 59, 17 septembre 2009, Arutyunyan c. Russie, no 48977/09, 10 janvier 2012, Sakhvadze c. Russie, no 15492/09, 10 janvier 2012 et Vladimir Vasilyev c. Russie, no 28370/05, 10 janvier 2012).