Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELASHEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 Violations of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  The Court further reiterates that the fact that the applicant was held in custody throughout the substantial part of the criminal proceedings required particular diligence on the part of the investigating authorities and courts to investigate the case and administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  Although this fact in itself does not imply a violation of Article 3 given, in particular, the fact that the applicant received treatment (see Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005, and Igor Ivanov, cited above, § 40) and that he fully recovered, the Court considers that these aspects, while not in themselves capable of justifying the notion of "degrading" treatment, are relevant in addition to the focal factor of the severe overcrowding, to show that the applicant's detention conditions went beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3 of the Convention (see Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 44, 2 June 2005).

• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  There is a high expectation of publicity in ordinary criminal proceedings, which may well concern dangerous individuals, notwithstanding the attendant security problems (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, § 87).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  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 following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  It therefore follows that the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court did not remedy the lack of publicity during the trial before the Moscow City Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Diennet v. France, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p. 15, § 34, and Ekbatani v. Sweden, judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, p. 14, § 32).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to fulfilling the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see Gautrin and Others v. France, judgment of 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, § 42, and Pretto and Others v. Italy, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, § 21).
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  Thus, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the open and public nature of proceedings in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses, or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice (see B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III, with further references).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (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; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  SUDARKOV v. RUSSIA

• BVerfG, 14.03.2012 - 2 BvR 2405/11

  Zum Grundsatz der Verfahrensöffentlichkeit - hier: Verbot des Tragens von …

  Sie ist außerdem ein Mittel, um das Vertrauen in die Gerichtsbarkeit zu sichern (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 8. Dezember 1983 - 8273/78 -, Axen/Deutschland, Tz. 25, EGMR-E 2, 321 ; EGMR, Urteil vom 22. Februar 1984 - 8209/78 -, Sutter/Schweiz, Tz. 26, EGMR-E 2, 345 ; EGMR, Urteil vom 14. November 2000 - 35115/97 -, Riepan/Österreich, Tz. 27; EGMR, Urteil vom 7. Juni 2007 - 66941/01 -, Zagorodnikov/Russland, Tz. 20; EGMR, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2007 - 64056/00 -, Volkov/Russland, Tz. 25; EGMR, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 2008 - 28617/03 -, Belashev/Russland, Tz. 79).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, where an applicant was released but subsequently re-detained, the Court limited the scope of its examination to the later period (see Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, § 48, 4 December 2008; Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, § 83, 15 November 2007; and Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 46, 12 October 2006).
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10

  GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  In another case, the Court went even further and concluded that not even the presence of confidential information in a case file automatically implies a need to close a trial to the public, without balancing openness with national security concerns (Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, 4 December 2008).

 
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Il ajoute à cet égard que, dans d'autres affaires, la Cour s'est montrée réticente à accepter de pareilles attestations vu le laps de temps écoulé et l'absence de tout document original (citant Kokoshkina c. Russie, no 2052/08, § 60, 28 mai 2009 ; Soudarkov c. Russie, no 3130/03, § 43, 10 juillet 2008 ; Belachev c. Russie, no 28617/03, § 52, 4 décembre 2008 ; et Zakharkin c. Russie, no 1555/04, § 124, 10 juin 2010).
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  Se référant ensuite à la jurisprudence de la Cour en matière de publicité de la procédure judiciaire (Belachev c. Russie, no 28617/03, § 83, 4 décembre 2008, Romanova c. Russie, précité, § 155, 11 octobre 2011, et Pichugin c. Russie, no 38623/03, § 187, 23 octobre 2012 et autres), le requérant soutient que les décisions du tribunal de première instance du 24 juin 2009 et du 19 mai 2010 portant sur l'exclusion du public des débats ne font apparaître aucune mise en balance du principe de publicité des débats et des impératifs de protection de l'ordre public et de la sécurité nationale.
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 9418/13

  KARTOYEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle également que, dans de nombreuses affaires, elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 après avoir constaté que les juridictions internes avaient ordonné l'exclusion du public des débats en motivant cette mesure simplement par la présence de documents classés secrets dans un dossier judiciaire ou par la nécessité d'assurer la sécurité des parties à la procédure, sans évaluer la nécessité de cette exclusion en mettant en balance le principe de la publicité des débats et les impératifs de protection de l'ordre public, de la sécurité nationale ou des intérêts de la justice (Belachev c. Russie, no 28617/03, §§ 79-88, 4 décembre 2008, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 152-160, 11 octobre 2011, Raks c. Russie, no 20702/04, §§ 43-51, 11 octobre 2011, Pichugin c. Russie, no 38623/03, §§ 185-192, 23 octobre 2012, Artemov c. Russie, no 14945/03, §§ 43-51, 3 avril 2014, Sheynoyev c. Russie [comité], no 65783/09, §§ 14-16, 25 septembre 2018, 1zmestyev c. Russie, no 74141/10, §§ 82-95, 27 août 2019, et Maslennikov c. Russie [comité], no 42301/11, §§ 15-31, 8 décembre 2020).
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 31295/11

  YAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  There is a high expectation of publicity in ordinary criminal proceedings (Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, § 79, 4 December 2008).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, where an applicant was released but subsequently re-detained, the Court limited the scope of its examination to the later period (see Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, § 48, 4 December 2008; Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, § 83, 15 November 2007; and Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 46, 12 October 2006).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 72444/14

  KREKHALEV c. RUSSIE

  Appréciation de la Cour 20. La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention après avoir constaté que les juridictions internes avaient ordonné l'exclusion du public des débats en raison de la simple présence de documents classifiés dans un dossier judiciaire sans se livrer à une quelconque évaluation de la nécessité d'une telle exclusion par la mise en balance du principe de publicité des débats et des impératifs de protection de l'ordre public et de la sécurité nationale (Belachev c. Russie, no 28617/03, §§ 79-88, 4 décembre 2008, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 152-160, 11 octobre 2011, Raks c. Russie, no 20702/04, §§ 43-51, 11 octobre 2011, Pichugin c. Russie, no 38623/03, §§ 185-192, 23 octobre 2012, et Sheynoyev c. Russie [comité], no 65783/09, §§ 14-16, 25 septembre 2018).