Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Zitiert selbst (32)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their moral resistance, or when it was such as to drive the victim to act against his will or conscience (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  The Court further reiterates that the assessment of the level of severity of a given form of treatment is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the gender, age and state of health of the victim (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 100-101, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  In particular, the Court held in the relevant cases that the Government had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the applicants by a prosecutor, a court or another State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicants" detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern their personal situation (see Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 34, 19 June 2008; Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  In this connection the Court reiterates that it is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  m of floor space in cell no. 122. In this connection the Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which detained applicants usually had less than three and a half square metres of personal space, it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify, in itself, a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Guliyev, cited above, § 32; 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; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 29787/03

  RIAD ET IDIAB c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  In connection with its findings above, the Court would emphasise that it considers it unacceptable for a person to be detained in conditions in which no provision is made for meeting his or her basic needs (see Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 106, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  m of floor space in cell no. 122. In this connection the Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which detained applicants usually had less than three and a half square metres of personal space, it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify, in itself, a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Guliyev, cited above, § 32; 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; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

  COBZARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  The Court subscribes to their view that the severity of the sentence was a relevant element in assessment of the risk of the first applicant's absconding or otherwise jeopardising the investigation at that early stage of the proceedings (see Galuashvili v. Georgia, no. 40008/04, § 48, 17 July 2008; see also Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 80, 26 July 2001).
• EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02

  Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03

  SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

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

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 69908/01

  JASAR v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 37810/03

  BAGEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 39510/98

  A.S. v. POLAND
• EKMR, 31.08.1994 - 21788/93

  M.-A.V contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 5742/02

  AKULININ AND BABICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 27526/95

  GÜNAYDIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 6846/02

  KHAMILA ISAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 44803/04

  PETROPOULOU-TSAKIRIS v. GREECE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Whereas the provision of four square metres remains the desirable standard of multi-occupancy accommodation, the Court has found that where the applicants have at their disposal less than three square metres of floor surface, the overcrowding must be considered to be so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, among many other authorities, Trepashkin (no. 2), § 113, and Kozhokar, § 96, both cited above; Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, § 70, 2 December 2010; Kovaleva v. Russia, no. 7782/04, § 56, 2 December 2010; Roman Karasev, cited above, §§ 48-49; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, § 35, 23 September 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov, § 93, and Gubin, § 57, both cited above; Salakhutdinov v. Russia, no. 43589/02, § 72, 11 February 2010; Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 98, 12 February 2009; Guliyev, cited above, § 32; 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; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).

  Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, 12 February 2009 (IZ-77/2, Moscow, 2001-2002).

• EGMR, 28.09.2015 - 23380/09

  BOUYID v. BELGIUM

  In examining them it may take account of the quality of the domestic proceedings and any possible flaws in the decision-making process (see Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 83, 12 February 2009).
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12

  Lampedusa-Haft war illegal

  To the extent that the applicants criticised the judge's decision on the ground that it was based on the statements of an MP to the press and not reiterated at the hearing, and that the police had been present during the MP's visit (see paragraph 147 above), the Court reiterates that where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention it is prepared to conduct a thorough examination of the findings of the national courts, and that in doing so it may take account of the quality of the domestic proceedings and any possible flaws in the decision-making process (see Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 83, 12 February 2009, and Bouyid, cited above, § 85).

• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  Since the Russian legal system offers no effective remedy in respect of complaints about conditions of pre-trial detention, conditions of transport between the remand prison and the courthouse and conditions of detention in the courthouse (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 119; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, § 84, 11 October 2011; and Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 104, 12 February 2009), the six-month period should be calculated from the end of the situation complained of.
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  SHMORGUNOV v. UKRAINE

  In examining them it may take account of the quality of the domestic proceedings and any possible flaws in the decision-making process (see Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 83, 12 February 2009).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  m of floor surface, the Court found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, among many other authorities, Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, § 70, 2 December 2010; Kovaleva v. Russia, no. 7782/04, § 56, 2 December 2010; Roman Karasev, cited above, §§ 48-49; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, § 35, 23 September 2010; Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 98, 12 February 2009; Guliyev, cited above, § 32; 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; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  She has not put forward any convincing argument suggesting that the arrangements made by the national authorities for feeding detainees, including herself, amounted to a form of treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention (see, in a similar context, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 93-99, 12 June 2008; Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, §§ 106-10, 12 February 2009; and Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, §§ 76-79, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  BEKETOV v. UKRAINE

  Moreover, the Court is not convinced by the Government's unsupported assertion that the applicant was provided with dry rations on the days when he was transported to the court (see paragraph 140 above and, mutatis mutandis, Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 108, 12 February 2009).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 1653/13

  Spanien verurteilt: ETA-Terroristen unmenschlich behandelt

  Pour ce faire, elle peut prendre en compte la qualité de la procédure interne et toute déficience propre à vicier le processus décisionnel (Denissenko et Bogdantchikov c. Russie, no 3811/02, § 83, 12 février 2009, et Bouyid, précité, § 85).
• EGMR, 07.05.2024 - 13186/20

  TSAAVA AND KMUZOV v. GEORGIA

  In examining them it may take account of the quality of the domestic proceedings and any possible flaws in the decision-making process (see Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 83, 12 February 2009).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 29272/08

  ÖZEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 28020/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 20136/11

  ILIEVSKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 28018/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  MIHHAILOV v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  MÎTU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 12543/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8494/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 56097/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 6644/08

  FIRAT CAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 41654/20

  VANYUKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.08.2022 - 43031/16

  GOLOBOKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 35012/10

  ABDULKHANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 53343/19

  KAYUMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.05.2011 - 6642/05

  ILYADI v. RUSSIA