Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SERGEY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (26)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  The Court takes cognisance of the fact that in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention on the part of the authorities to humiliate or debase the applicant, but reiterates that, irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise their custodial 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, and Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 37, 10 May 2007).

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the basis of the gravity of the charges and using formulaic reasoning without addressing the specific facts of the case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 106 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-49, 22 May 2012).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  In so far as the Government may be understood to suggest that the applicant had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint about the length of the pre-trial detention in that he had not appealed against certain detention orders, the Court reiterates that the purpose of the rule requiring domestic remedies to be exhausted is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the alleged violations before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-53, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  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 the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30-32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the basis of the gravity of the charges and using formulaic reasoning without addressing the specific facts of the case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 106 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-49, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5829/04

  Russland wegen Chodorkowski verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the basis of the gravity of the charges and using formulaic reasoning without addressing the specific facts of the case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 106 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-49, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the basis of the gravity of the charges and using formulaic reasoning without addressing the specific facts of the case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 106 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-49, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  Indeed, the Court has already held that when pre-trial detention is found to have exceeded a reasonable time on the most recent date on which an appeal court examined the detention matter, any detention after that date will also be found, except in extraordinary circumstances, to have necessarily kept that character throughout the time for which it was continued (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 9).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  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 the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30-32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the basis of the gravity of the charges and using formulaic reasoning without addressing the specific facts of the case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 106 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-49, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02

  SUTYAGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 28957/02

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

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 31242/05

  VLADIMIR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 20326/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06

  KHRISTOFOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 25432/05

  [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, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  33023/07.
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA

  In this respect, the relevance of detainees' prior convictions is undeniably a factor to take into account when deciding to depart from the rule of respect for individual liberty, although reference to a person's prior record cannot, on its own, suffice to justify refusal of release (see, among other authorities, Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 33023/07, § 84, 17 October 2013, with further references).

• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA

  In assessing the amount of compensation awarded by a domestic court, the Court considers, on the basis of the material in its possession, what it would have done in the same position (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 211, ECHR 2006-V; Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 33023/07, § 49, 17 October 2013; Zenkov v. Russia, no. 37858/08, § 52, 30 April 2014; and Smetanko v. Russia, no. 6239/04, § 41, 29 April 2010).
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 46398/09

  DIMITAR MILADINOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" and 2 other …

  In this connection the Court reiterates that reference to a person's prior criminal record cannot suffice to justify refusal of release (see Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 33023/07, § 84, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 25238/08

  SARSEMBAYEV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  In this connection, it reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her status as a victim if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for, a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 33023/07, § 45, 17 October 2013).