Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TERESHCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture Degrading treatment ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Tereshchenko v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-V, and Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010).
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08

  DAVISON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-V, and Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his or her civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18).

 
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  The Court recognises at the same time that some measure of control over prisoners" contacts with the outside world is called for and is not in itself incompatible with the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI, and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 82, 4 February 2003).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  Other criteria which may be taken into consideration by the Court include the recognition of the alleged right in similar circumstances by the domestic courts or the fact that the latter examined the merits of the applicant's request (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 41, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for "civil rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  In carrying out this assessment, it is necessary to look beyond appearances and the language used and to concentrate on the realities of the situation (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 38, Series A no. 50, and Roche, cited above, § 121).
• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee any particular content for "civil rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States: the Court may not create by way of interpretation of Article 6 § 1 a substantive right which has no legal basis in the State concerned (see, for example, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 119, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  The starting point must be the provisions of the relevant domestic law and their interpretation by the domestic courts (see Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A, and Roche, cited above, § 120).
• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  LORSE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  The Court recognises at the same time that some measure of control over prisoners" contacts with the outside world is called for and is not in itself incompatible with the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI, and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 82, 4 February 2003).
• EGMR, 30.10.2003 - 41576/98

  GANCI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 1855/02

  KÖK c. TURQUIE

• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  In a number of cases where the applicants had at their disposal less than 3 square metres of floor surface, the Court considered the overcrowding to be so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 102-103, 28 March 2006; Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, §§ 31-32, 1 March 2012; Nieciecki v. Greece, no. 11677/11, §§ 49-51, 4 December 2012; Kanakis v. Greece (no. 2), no. 40146/11, §§ 106-107, 12 December 2013; Tatishvili v. Greece, no. 26452/11, § 43, 31 July 2014; Tereshchenko v. Russia, no. 33761/05, §§ 83-84, 5 June 2014).
• EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  LESLAW WÓJCIK v. POLAND

  Privileges may encompass in particular measures like prison leave (see Boulois, cited above, § 98) or an early release (see Szabó v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28578/03, ECHR 2006-VIII; Tereshchenko v. Russia, no. 33761/05, § 107, 5 June 2014; and Macedo Da Costa v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 26619/07, § 22, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 33172/16

  CHALDAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 8 de la Convention en raison de refus d'accorder une visite familiale opposé par les autorités russes aux personnes placées en détention provisoire (Moïsseïev, précité, §§ 248-251, Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, §§ 123-127, 12 juin 2008, Tereshchenko c. Russie, no 33761/05, §§ 119-137, 5 juin 2014, Andrey Smirnov, précité, §§ 39-43) ainsi qu'en raison de la séparation de visiteurs par une paroi (Moïsseïev, précité, §§ 257-259, et Andrey Smirnov, précité, §§ 51-56).