Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETRENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04

  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 2000-XI).

  Nevertheless, 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 secured (see Kudla v. Poland, no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04

  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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04

  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, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04

  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 complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and, finally, to what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that in a number of Russian cases it has found that problems arising from conditions of detention, in particular detention in overcrowded remand prisons, were apparently of a structural nature, for which no effective domestic remedy had been shown to exist (see Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004, Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 34, 19 June 2008 and Nazarov v. Russia no. 13591/05, § 77, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04

  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, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04

  In its previous cases where applicants had at their disposal less than 3 m² of personal space, the Court found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 59-60, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, § 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, § 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44-46, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 53254/99

  KARALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04

  The extreme lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the impugned detention conditions were "degrading" from the point of view of Article 3 (see Karalevicius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, § 36, 7 April 2005).
• EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02

  Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04

  In its previous cases where applicants had at their disposal less than 3 m² of personal space, the Court found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 59-60, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, § 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, § 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44-46, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that in a number of Russian cases it has found that problems arising from conditions of detention, in particular detention in overcrowded remand prisons, were apparently of a structural nature, for which no effective domestic remedy had been shown to exist (see Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004, Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 34, 19 June 2008 and Nazarov v. Russia no. 13591/05, § 77, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

  GULIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 12008/03

  LUTOKHIN v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Where the cell accommodated not so many detainees but was rather small in overall size, the Court noted that, deduction being made of the place occupied by bunk beds, a table, and a cubicle in which a lavatory pan was placed, the remaining floor space was hardly sufficient even to pace out the cell (see Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, § 87, 27 January 2011; Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, § 39, 20 January 2011; Gladkiy, § 68, Trepashkin (no. 2), § 113, both cited above; Arefyev v. Russia, no. 29464/03, § 59, 4 November 2010; and Lutokhin, cited above, § 57).

  Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, 20 January 2011 (IZ-47/1, St Petersburg, 2001-2004).

• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09

  GORBULYA v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of an acute lack of personal space in the cells of facility IZ-47/1 in respect of the time during which the applicant was held there (see Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 43-51, 29 March 2007; Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 38-48, 26 June 2008; Lutokhin v. Russia, no. 12008/03, §§ 53-59, 8 April 2010; Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, §§ 35-41, 20 January 2011; Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, §§ 47-53, 3 March 2011; and Popandopulo v. Russia, no. 4512/09, §§ 84-89, 10 May 2011).
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  30112/04.

• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 72710/11

  YARASHONEN v. TURKEY

  The Court also takes into account the space occupied by the furniture items in the living area in reviewing complaints of overcrowding (see Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, § 39, 20 January 2011; and Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, § 87, 27 January 2011).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 52160/13

  MOXAMED ISMAACIIL v. MALTA and 1 other application

  The Court also takes into account the space occupied by the furniture items in the living area in reviewing complaints of overcrowding (see Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, § 39, 20 January 2011; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, § 87, 27 January 2011; and Yarashonen, cited above, § 76).
• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  MAHAMED JAMA v. MALTA

  The Court also takes into account the space occupied by the furniture items in the living area in reviewing complaints of overcrowding (see Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, § 39, 20 January 2011; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, § 87, 27 January 2011; and Yarashonen, cited above, § 76).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 23185/03

  [ENG]

  The Court also observes that in its judgments in the cases of Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 43-51, 29 March 2007; Gusev v. Russia, no. 67542/01, §§ 51-61, 15 May 2008; Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 38-48, 26 June 2008; Lutokhin v. Russia, no. 12008/03, §§ 56-59, 8 April 2010; and Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, §§ 35-41, 20 January 2011 it has previously examined the conditions of detention in IZ-47/1 in 2000-03 and found them to be incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding.
• EGMR, 01.03.2012 - 30268/03

  DMITRIY SAZONOV v. RUSSIA

  It also notes that it has already found on many occasions that remand centre no. IZ-47/1 was severely overcrowded and has also found a violation of Article 3 in respect of applicants held there at the same time as the applicant in the present case (see Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 43-51, 29 March 2007; Gusev v. Russia, no. 67542/01, §§ 54-61, 15 May 2008; Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 38-48, 26 June 2008; Lutokhin v. Russia, no. 12008/03, §§ 53-59, 8 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, §§ 64-73, 22 April 2010; and Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, §§ 35-41, 20 January 2011).