Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOROZOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 07.03.1994 - 20357/92

  WHITESIDE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  Referring to the Court's case-law (see Whiteside v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision of 7 March 1994, application no. 20357/92, Decisions and Reports 76, p. 80), they pointed out that a mere doubt on the applicant's part as to the prospects of success was not sufficient to exempt him from submitting his claim to any of the aforementioned national authorities with jurisdiction in such matters.
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  In view of the fact that the Government did not submit any convincing relevant information, the Court will now proceed to examine the issue concerning the number of inmates kept in the relevant cells of the Novocherkassk, Ryazan and Yekaterinburg facilities on the basis of the applicant's submissions (see Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 35, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 20077/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  A failure on their part to submit convincing evidence relating to the material conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 123; and Suldin v. Russia, no. 20077/04, § 39, 16 October 2014).

• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 43553/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  It can find a violation of Article 3 on the basis of any serious allegation which the respondent Government have failed to refute (see Grigoryevskikh v. Russia, no. 22/03, § 55, 9 April 2009; and Adeishvili (Mazmishvili) v. Russia, no. 43553/10, § 65, 16 October 2014).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  The provisions of domestic and international law relating to conditions of detention are set out in the Court's judgment in the judgment of Ananyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 25-65, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  It has found that no effective remedies existed in Russia for applicants who have complained of an ongoing deterioration in their health as a result of a lack of proper medical care while in detention (see, among other authorities, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24877/10, § 95, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 91, 27 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, § 80, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  It has found that no effective remedies existed in Russia for applicants who have complained of an ongoing deterioration in their health as a result of a lack of proper medical care while in detention (see, among other authorities, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24877/10, § 95, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 91, 27 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, § 80, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 72, 17 January 2012; and Musaev v. Turkey, no. 72754/11, § 46, 21 October 2014).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 76573/01

  DENNIS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of the knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 21056/11

  NORKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  The Court reiterates that, in order to satisfy the six-month rule, his complaint about the inadequate conditions of detention in this facility should have been lodged within six months of the day after his transfer out of the detention facility (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, §§ 14-25, 5 February 2013; Zhirko v. Russia (dec.), no. 8696/12, § 13, 17 September 2013; and Tuvykin v. Russia (dec.), no. 31970/09, § 12, 27 March 2014).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  BUZYCHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

  MUSAEV v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 34044/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 8696/12

  ZHIRKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 52025/13

  MUMRYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 31970/09

  TUVYKIN v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  In the absence of convincing information from the Government, the Court will examine the issue on the basis of the first applicant's submissions (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 68, 12 November 2015, and Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 35, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  38758/05.
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  NAUMOV v. RUSSIA

  However, when an applicant was no longer in a situation of which he complained, that is when he was no longer in detention and/or no longer experienced the detention authorities' failure to provide them with adequate medical services, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; and Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).

• EGMR, 29.03.2018 - 19538/10

  NICHEPORUK v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject, including the case-law covering the application of the six-month rule to continuous situations (see Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 31-33, 19 June 2008), the exhaustion issue for similar cases (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015, and Butrin, cited above, §§ 43-45) and victim status questions (see Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, §§ 26-38, 20 February 2014, with further references), the Court dismisses the Government's objections raised in respect of applications nos.
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 59705/12

  SERGEYEVA AND PROLETARSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  Turning to the Government's plea of non-exhaustion, the Court observes that it has already held that a civil claim for damages was capable of providing redress and offered reasonable prospects of success for a claim about inadequate medical assistance in detention, if the applicant himself is not in the situation he or she has complained about (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015 with further references).
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 8720/12

  PARYGINA AND BULIN v. RUSSIA

  However, when an applicant was no longer in the situation of which he complained, that is when he was no longer in detention and/or no longer experienced the detention authorities' failure to provide him with adequate medical services, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; and Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).