Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (35)Zitiert selbst (34)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 33 et seq., 10 May 2007; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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).

  "[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).

• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  The "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  Until his conviction, the accused must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continued detention ceases to be reasonable (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 30, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, § 4, 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8).

• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  "[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).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  Until his conviction, the accused must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continued detention ceases to be reasonable (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 30, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, § 4, 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  The Court further reiterates that the date of the "final decision" for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in connection with a period of pre-trial detention is the date on which the charge is determined by a court at first instance (see, among other authorities, Daktaras v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 153, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  "[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).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  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).".
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

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

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

  DVOYNYKH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 4459/03

  SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  KLYAKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 60776/00

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

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
• KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 25/09
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 76114/01

  SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, 25 June 2009 (IZ-61/1, Rostov-on-Don, 1999-2005).
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Here again the Court does not see any reason to depart from its previous case-law and considers that the detention order of 11 December 2002 was, by its form, arbitrary, and thus contrary to Article 5 § 1 (c) (see, in addition to the cases mentioned above, Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, §§ 45-47, 9 July 2009; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 112-114, 25 June 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 112-114, 23 April 2009; Shukhardin, cited above, §§ 65-70; Ignatov, cited above, §§ 79-81; and Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 97-98, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court has held that the absence of any grounds given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1. Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific limit on the duration of that detention would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see also Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, §§ 45-47, 9 July 2009; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 112-14, 25 June 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 112-14, 23 April 2009; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 79-81, 24 May 2007; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).

• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  36932/02.
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Having examined the record presented by the Government, the Court considers that neither the penalties nor the consequent change in the applicant's detention regime revealed any arbitrariness which could in itself amount to a form of pressure contrary to Article 34 of the Convention (see Poleshchuk v. Russia, no. 60776/00, § 32, 7 October 2004, and Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, § 167, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 14344/13

  ALIMOV v. TURKEY

  The Court notes in this connection that the Government's statements as to the size and occupancy level of the Sabiha Gökçen Airport detention facility were not corroborated by any documents enabling the Court to verify their validity, even though it was open to them to submit copies of registration logs with the names of the passengers detained together with the applicant in the relevant period, as well as photos or video footage of the facility and other pertinent information regarding its size (see, mutatis mutandis, Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 91-92, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA

  This situation has also been examined in many cases against Russia, in which the Court has found that the absence of any grounds given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time was incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1. Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific time-limit would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, §§ 45-47, 9 July 2009; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 112-114, 25 June 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 112-114, 23 April 2009; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 79-81, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 97-98, 24 May 2007; Nakhmanovich, cited above, §§ 70-71; and Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 134 and 142).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  [ENG]

  The Court observes that the applicant's argument concerning the alleged tax evasion charges and the return of his licence have never received a judicial answer and that the ordinary court's conclusions made in reliance on "evidence previously obtained" and "the materials in the case file" are abstract and stereotyped (see, mutatis mutandis, Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, § 141, 25 June 2009) and as such not susceptible of review on account of lack of reference to concrete facts and analysis.
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07

  [ENG]

  Taking into account the general problem of overcrowding in Russian remand prisons (see Ovchinnikov v. Russia, no. 9807/02, §§ 67-73, 17 June 2010; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 88-97, 25 June 2009; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov, cited above, §§ 97 et seq.) the Court has doubt as to the Government's submission that the authorities allocated detention cells measuring around 40 square metres and suitable for ten inmates for the applicant's exclusive use.
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 28018/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has previously found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in many Russian cases where the domestic court maintained a custodial measure in respect of applicants, without indicating any particular reason for such a decision or setting a specific time-limit for the continued detention or for a periodic review of the preventive measure (see Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 78-82, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 111-115, 23 April 2009; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 111-115, 25 June 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, §§ 43-47, 9 July 2009; and, most recently, Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, §§ 129-131, 24 April 2012).
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  SHERSTOBITOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 17504/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 1985/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 6858/11

  DELIJORGJI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 57180/09

  BERNOBIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 22475/05

  DOLGOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 33872/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 56097/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 20326/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  SHULENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 13668/21

  MELIA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 59443/12

  REZNIK v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 38726/05

  PELEVIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 4320/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 45373/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 31478/17

  PROKOPYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 13465/04

  SABIROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 22367/09

  YURKEVICH v. RUSSIA