Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOZHOKAR v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domesic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 13 Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (28)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  The Government have failed to submit evidence as to the existence of any domestic remedy by which the applicant could have complained about the general conditions of his detention, in particular with regard to the structural problem of overcrowding in Russian detention facilities, or that the remedies available to him were effective, that is to say that they could have prevented violations from occurring or continuing, or that they could have afforded the applicant appropriate redress (see, to the same effect, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 70-71, 28 March 2006; Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 72, 12 October 2006; and Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 112, 13 September 2005).".

  While acknowledging that authorities must ensure that the diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, cited above, § 211), the Court has also held that Article 3 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as securing for every detained person medical assistance at the same level as "in the best civilian clinics" (see Mirilashvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 6293/04, 10 July 2007).

• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  He also cited the cases of Kalashnikov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001), Moiseyev v. Russia ((dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004) and Mamedova v. Russia (no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006), where the Court had noted that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicants' detention had apparently been of a structural nature, for which no effective domestic remedy had been shown to exist.

  "[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 (compare 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).

• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  He also cited the cases of Kalashnikov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001), Moiseyev v. Russia ((dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004) and Mamedova v. Russia (no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006), where the Court had noted that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicants' detention had apparently been of a structural nature, for which no effective domestic remedy had been shown to exist.

  "[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 (compare 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).

• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  He referred to the case of Benediktov v. Russia (no. 106/02, 10 May 2007), where the Court had found a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence in Russia of an effective remedy in respect of inhuman and degrading conditions of detention.

  The Court notes that it has already found a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective remedy in respect of inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russia (see Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007), where it concluded:.

• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  Accordingly, it was not necessary to assess other aspects of the physical conditions of detention (see, for example, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 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; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  Accordingly, it was not necessary to assess other aspects of the physical conditions of detention (see, for example, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 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; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  Accordingly, it was not necessary to assess other aspects of the physical conditions of detention (see, for example, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 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; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02

  Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  Accordingly, it was not necessary to assess other aspects of the physical conditions of detention (see, for example, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 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; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  Accordingly, it was not necessary to assess other aspects of the physical conditions of detention (see, for example, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 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; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  The Court reiterates that although Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 93, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX; and Kudla, cited above, § 94).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

  GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  MECHENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  BELASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 72277/01

  DVOYNYKH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

  SUDARKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 13659/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 57862/00

  DAVENPORT v. PORTUGAL

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 77-79 and 108, 16 December 2010, and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37546/06, §§ 60-61 and 73-75, 19 November 2013.
• 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).
• EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  [ENG]

  Rather, in order to determine whether Article 3 of the Convention has been complied with, the Court will focus on determining whether the domestic authorities provided the applicant with sufficient medical supervision capable of effectively assessing his condition and setting up an adequate course of treatment for his diseases (see Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, § 108, 16 December 2010).

  Indeed, this is not the first time that the Court has had to deal with allegations of inadequate HIV-related medical care in respect of detainees in Russia (see Aleksanyan, cited above, §§ 145-158; A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 132-135, 14 October 2010; Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 108-116, 16 December 2010; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 73-77, 10 April 2012; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 102-108, 13 November 2012).

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court has held in particular that the Government had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or another State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant's personal situation alone (see, among recent authorities, Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 92-93, 16 December 2010; Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, §§ 43-44, 7 October 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, §§ 82-84, 15 July 2010; Lutokhin, cited above, § 45; Skorobogatykh v. Russia, no. 4871/03, § 52, 22 December 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 87-89, 12 March 2009; Benediktov, cited above, §§ 27-30; and also Moiseyev (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  33099/08.
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  [ENG]

  The guidelines of the World Health Organisation ("WHO") on antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents can be found in the judgment in the case of Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 77-79, 16 December 2010.
• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  BULATOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Therefore, he did not require any regular and specialised medical supervision or monitoring of the progression rate of any disease at the time (see paragraph 38 above; see also, a contrario, Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, § 108, 16 December 2010).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 35297/05

  [ENG]

  As a result of such overcrowding, the first and third applicants" detention did not meet the minimum requirement, as laid down in the Court's case-law (see, among many other authorities, Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 2), no. 14248/05, § 113, 16 December 2010; Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, § 96, 16 December 2010; and Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, § 70, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 18813/06

  [ENG]

  The Court has repeatedly declined to accept the validity of similar certificates 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, cited above, § 60; 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).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  [ENG]

  The Court has repeatedly declined to accept the validity of similar certificates 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, cited above, § 60; 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).
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 41558/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 61510/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 37546/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 46282/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 25462/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 25402/15 (anhängig)

  TOSHMIRZAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 17081/06

  GÜLTEKIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 54655/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 59705/12

  SERGEYEVA AND PROLETARSKAYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 34728/06

  CHIRYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA