Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,49064
EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,49064)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.07.2008 - 3130/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,49064)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Juli 2008 - 3130/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,49064)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,49064) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (36)Zitiert selbst (19)

  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
    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-X; 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).

    Even though the travel time did not exceed one hour, the Court considered such transport arrangements unacceptable (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118-120, ECHR 2005-X).

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
    "[T]he Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court or other State agencies, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern the applicant's personal situation (cf. Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; and, most recently, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006).

    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-X; 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, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

    MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
    "[T]he Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court or other State agencies, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern the applicant's personal situation (cf. Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; and, most recently, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006).

    Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006).

  • EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

    NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
    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-X; 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 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, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

    B. ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
    After that date his detention no longer fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), but within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, for instance, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39).
  • EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06

    YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
    It considered such travel arrangements impermissible, irrespective of the duration (see Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 108-113, 25 October 2007).
  • EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

    FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
    In these circumstances, relying on the principle cited in paragraph 44 above, the Court will examine the merits of the applicant's complaints in respect of the conditions of his transport solely on the basis of his submissions (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 61, 25 October 2005, and Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 49438/99, § 75, 12 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01

    KOVAL v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
    The remedy can be either preventive or compensatory in nature (see, among other authorities, Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, § 94, 19 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 49438/99

    STAYKOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
    In these circumstances, relying on the principle cited in paragraph 44 above, the Court will examine the merits of the applicant's complaints in respect of the conditions of his transport solely on the basis of his submissions (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 61, 25 October 2005, and Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 49438/99, § 75, 12 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
    The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

    MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

    MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

    MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

    BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

    LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

    OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 72277/01

    DVOYNYKH v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

    IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    In other cases the Government did submit extracts from the original prison records but they were too disparate and spaced out in time to present a credible refutation of the applicant's claim of severe overcrowding at the material time (see Gubin, § 54; Kokoshkina, § 32, both cited above; and Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, § 43, 10 July 2008).

    Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, 10 July 2008 (IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3, Moscow, 2000-2002).

  • EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

    Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

    When dealing with complaints in relation to conditions of detention that do not simply relate to a specific event, but concern a whole range of problems regarding sanitary conditions, the temperature in the cells, overcrowding, lack of adequate medical treatment and so on, which have affected an inmate throughout his or her incarceration, the Court regards this as a continuing situation, even if the person concerned has been transferred to various detention facilities (see Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 34-36, 26 June 2008; Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, § 40, 10 July 2008; and Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, no. 35972/05, §§ 136-38, 24 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

    Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

    The Court has repeatedly declined to accept the validity of similar statements on the grounds that they could not be viewed as sufficiently reliable, given the lapse of time involved and the absence of any supporting documentary evidence (see Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, § 52, 13 November 2007; Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, § 43, 10 July 2008; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 60, 28 May 2009; Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, § 95, 16 December 2010; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 99-100, 22 May 2012; and Zentsov and Others v. Russia, no. 35297/05, § 43, 23 October 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht