Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALIEV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to prison conditions No violation of Art. 3 with regard to alleged ill-treatment by prison officers Violation of Art. 8 with regard to initial restrictions on receipt of parcels No ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 41220/98
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98
• EGMR, 14.06.2017 - 41220/98

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 39483/98

  NAZARENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  Having consulted the parties, the President of the Chamber decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the proceedings in the present case should be conducted simultaneously with those in the cases of Nazarenko v. Ukraine, Dankevich v. Ukraine, Khokhlich v. Ukraine, Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine and Kuznetsov v. Ukraine (applications nos. 39483/98, 40679/98, 41707/98, 38812/97 and 39042/97) (Rule 43 § 2)).

  This evidence was consistent with the testimony of Mr Nazarenko, who was detained in the same prison (Application no. 39483/98).

  The Court observes that the prison governor's evidence was corroborated by the applicant in application no. 39483/98, Nazarenko v. Ukraine, who was detained in the same prison and heard by the Delegates on the same day as the present applicant and who testified that the governor had met the prisoners every Thursday (see paragraph 28 of the Nazarenko judgment).

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 48, ECHR 2001-III; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI.

  Whilst noting with approval the reform movements in several European countries to improve prison conditions by facilitating conjugal visits, the Court considers that the refusal of such visits may for the present time be regarded as justified for the prevention of disorder and crime within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, E.L.H. and P.B.H. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32094/96 and 32568/96, Commission decision of 22 October 1997, Decisions and Reports 91, p. 61; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI).

• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on an annual rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank to which should be added three percentage points (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, no. 28957/95, 3 July 2002, § 124, to be published in ECHR 2002).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, § 161 in fine; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  In particular, if it is not to contravene Article 8, such interference must be "in accordance with the law", pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve that aim (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; and Petra v. Romania, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27, Series A no. 176-B, p. 52, § 26, respectively).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27, Series A no. 176-B, p. 52, § 26, respectively).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, pp. 17-18, § 30).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  In addition, as underlined by the Court in the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment, present-day attitudes in the Contracting States to capital punishment are relevant for the assessment whether the acceptable threshold of suffering or degradation has been exceeded (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 41, § 104).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  In accordance with this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to such distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

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

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 40679/98

  DANKEVICH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  KHOKHLICH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 39042/97

  KUZNETSOV v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  [ENG]

  En même temps, il faut bien admettre que certaines mesures visant à contrôler les contacts des détenus avec le monde extérieur sont nécessaires et non incompatibles en soi avec la Convention (Aliev c. Ukraine, no 41220/98, § 187, 29 avril 2003 ; et Kalachnikov c. Russie (déc.), no 47095/99, § 7, CEDH 2001-XI (extraits)).
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  EPNERS-GEFNERS v. LATVIA

  They relied on, most notably, the cases of Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X), Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2) (no. 31583/96, 3 April 2003), and Aliev v. Ukraine (no. 41220/98, 29 April 2003) to argue that such a right could not be derived from the Court's case-law.

  However, the Court has stressed that the refusal of such visits may be regarded as justified for the prevention of disorder and crime within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 188, 29 April 2003, and Nazarenko, cited above, § 26).

• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  [ENG]

  The Court has found that Article 8 does not impose a duty to arrange cohabitation visits for the detainees and their spouses (see Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 188, 29 April 2003; Dickson, cited above; and Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, no. 37862/02, § 62, 29 May 2012).

• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14150/08

  [ENG]

  Even if it had still been possible to receive parcels from the family when they visited the prison, the Court takes the view that this would have had only limited effect, since it would have been dependent on the financial and geographical situation of the family (compare and contrast, Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 182, 29 April 2003 and Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Having consulted the parties, the President of the Chamber decided that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the proceedings in the present case should be conducted simultaneously with those in Nazarenko v. Ukraine, Aliev v. Ukraine, Dankevich v. Ukraine, Khokhich v. Ukraine and Kuznetsov v. Ukraine (applications nos. 39483/98, 41220/98, 40679/98, 41707/98 and 39042/97) (Rule 43 § 2).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  PETROV v. BULGARIA

  The Court must thus establish whether the matter of which the applicant complains falls within the purview of Article 8. On this point, it first observes that while any detention which is lawful under Article 5 of the Convention entails by its nature a limitation on private and family life, it is an essential part of an inmate's right to respect for family life that the prison authorities assist him in maintaining contact with his close family (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, § 61, ECHR 2000-X; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts); and Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 187, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

  [ENG]

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time (see Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 105, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01

  KOVAL v. UKRAINE

  The applicant submitted in conclusion that, in the light of the Court's judgments of 29 April 2003 against Ukraine (see Dankevich, no. 40679/98, § 112; Khokhlich, no. 41707/98, § 154; Nazarenko, no. 39483/98, § 114; and Aliev, no. 41220/98, § 110), the conditions of detention in all the facilities he referred to were inhuman and degrading.
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  It has been held by the Court that some measure of control of prisoners" contacts with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts), and Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 187, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63763/11

  ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court has found that Article 8 does not impose a duty to arrange co-habitation visits for the detainees and their spouses (see e.g. Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 188, 29 April 2003; Dickson v. the United Kingdom cited above and Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, no. 37862/02, § 62, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 40679/98

  DANKEVICH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

  G.B. v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 65550/01

  KOVAL v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  KHOKHLICH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 39042/97

  KUZNETSOV v. UKRAINE
• BayObLG, 22.05.2024 - 204 StObWs 210/24

  Strafgefangener, Strafvollstreckungskammer, Langzeitbesuch, …
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 40653/98

  IORGOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 39483/98

  NAZARENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 76843/01

  NAZARENKO c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 7510/04

  KONTROVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 33617/02

  ALIEV v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 42820/09

  TUDOR v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 37952/09

  [ENG]